Updated: 1/13/20
Christian Economics: Teacher's Edition
He said therefore, “A nobleman went into a far country to receive for himself a kingdom and then return. Calling ten of his servants, he gave them ten minas, and said to them, ‘Engage in business until I come.’ But his citizens hated him and sent a delegation after him, saying, ‘We do not want this man to reign over us.’ When he returned, having received the kingdom, he ordered these servants to whom he had given the money to be called to him, that he might know what they had gained by doing business. The first came before him, saying, ‘Lord, your mina has made ten minas more.’ And he said to him, ‘Well done, good servant! Because you have been faithful in a very little, you shall have authority over ten cities.’ And the second came, saying, ‘Lord, your mina has made five minas.’ And he said to him, ‘And you are to be over five cities’ (Luke 19:12–19).
This parable is an aspect of point four of the biblical covenant: judgment. It tells the story of a businessman who left wealth in the hands of his stewards. Then he departed. When he returned, he exercised judgment in assessing the performance of the stewards. He rewarded them in terms of their performance. There were winners and losers in this assessment. This steward did exceptionally well.
This parable is a variation of the one recorded by Matthew in chapter 25. In Matthew 25, Jesus’ focus is on the final judgment. So is this one, but it is more indirect.
This parable focuses on political rulership. The parable tells the story of a nobleman. He possessed political power. He was not a businessman. He had ten servants under his authority. They were stewards. He trusted them with his money. In his kingdom were citizens who hated him. He turned one coin each over to his servants. Then he departed. At his return, he demanded an accounting. One servant had produced a profit of ten to one, which was huge. Another had produced five to one, which was large. One servant had buried his coin. He returned it. The other servants are not mentioned. The first two received political authority over cities. The man who made ten to one ruled over ten cities. The man who made five to one ruled over five cities. The man who buried his coin was condemned. But so were all of the citizens who had rebelled. This is clearly about the final judgment. The nobleman’s condemnation of the coin-hoarder involved a transfer of wealth.
Why then did you not put my money in the bank, and at my coming I might have collected it with interest?’ And he said to those who stood by, ‘Take the mina from him, and give it to the one who has the ten minas.’ And they said to him, ‘Lord, he has ten minas!’ ‘I tell you that to everyone who has, more will be given, but from the one who has not, even what he has will be taken away. But as for these enemies of mine, who did not want me to reign over them, bring them here and slaughter them before me’” (vv. 23–27).
The crowd was aghast at this command: “Take the mina from him, and give it to the one who has the ten minas.” This was not fair, they believed. The most successful steward was being elevated over the less successful ones. “And they said to him, ‘Lord, he has ten minas!’” The nobleman explained why: “I tell you that to everyone who has, more will be given, but from the one who has not, even what he has will be taken away.” There is a modern phrase that expresses this thought: “The rich get richer, and the poor get poorer.” Jesus made it plain that this summary of economic cause and effect in God’s kingdom is covenantally mandatory. This is the process of inheritance, which necessarily involves disinheritance. “But as for these enemies of mine, who did not want me to reign over them, bring them here and slaughter them before me.” The nobleman minced no words. Neither did Jesus. This ending made it clear that this version of the parable is also about the final judgment.
Why should the rich get richer? Because of their superior service, as manifested by the most successful steward’s high rate of return. Why should the poor man lose whatever he had? Because of his inferior service. His attitude regarding the nobleman was the same as the attitude of the citizenry. He said as much: “Lord, here is your mina, which I kept laid away in a handkerchief; for I was afraid of you, because you are a severe man. You take what you did not deposit, and reap what you did not sow” (vv. 20–21). He accused the nobleman of being the recipient of unearned wealth, reaping what he did not sow. The nobleman recognized the underlying attitude: envy. The steward was under his authority, yet he decided to do nothing of value with the coin. He was unwilling to serve faithfully, just as the citizens in general were unwilling to serve faithfully. They were in rebellion against lawful authority. So was he. As a result, he lost whatever he possessed. The coin, which had been entrusted to him, went to the most profitable of all the nobleman’s servants. He was cast out of the office of steward to join the masses of losers, who were about to lose all that they had enjoyed. They were all covenantally fit for the slaughter. They were all unprofitable servants.
Covenant-breakers are in rebellion against God. They see God as an unfair monarch who reaps where He has not sown—an exploiter, in other words. He expects obedience. He gets rebellion. He expects production. He gets nothing. In contrast, faithful stewards multiply God’s wealth. They understand the nature of the hierarchical relationship between God and men. They understand that whatever they possess is a gift from God (James 1:17). They faithfully serve as trustees, not as autonomous owners.
It is clear from both versions of the parable that the two stewards had produced above-average rates of return. These were not returns associated with depositing money in a bank. These were returns associated with creative investing to deal with the uncertainties of life. They were profits, not interest. They revealed the stewards’ ability to assess an uncertain future and then deal with it by buying low and selling high. This is entrepreneurship. Successful entrepreneurship requires an investor to see gaps in the market and then fill these gaps more efficiently than the competition. This is a unique skill.
The nobleman understood that he could gain an above-average rate of return for himself by letting these two stewards retain authority over his capital. He gave the coin of the rebel to the steward who had made ten to one. This was rational. Why turn it over to the steward who had made only five to one? The owner wants to maximize his rate of profit. This way, he will possess even more capital to invest.
The owner of the capital expected to return as ruler of a kingdom. “When he returned, having received the kingdom, he ordered these servants to whom he had given the money to be called to him, that he might know what they had gained by doing business” (v. 15). He would need subordinate rulers in this kingdom. He left as a nobleman. He would return as a king. He used success in business as a success indicator of the stewards' competence in future high offices.
The enforcers of the nobleman’s laws viewed this as unfair. After all, the steward who had made ten to one did not need the money. Their assessment rested on an assumption: the stewards who had produced nothing deserved the unproductive steward’s coin. They assumed that a wealthy man ought to use his money to subsidize men who had shown no ability to produce a positive rate of return. These people deserved another chance. This is the mentality of defenders of the welfare state. It assumes that high productivity is over-rated. It assumes that nonperformance deserves to be rewarded by those with money to invest.
God has set up His kingdom on a very different foundation. In His kingdom, the most productive stewards receive even greater wealth and authority. A comparable practice in the world of competitive sports is the jockey who wins horse races. Owners of fast horses pay high wages to hire these jockeys, who then win even more races. The owners of fast horses are not interested in giving career opportunities to untried, inexperienced, or losing jockeys. They want their horses to win. The best way to do this is to hire winning jockeys. The fast get faster, and the slow get slower, whether horses or jockeys. The only way to rise to the top is for a jockey to win over horses that are regarded as faster. If a jockey can win with slower horses, he must be a superior jockey. He will then experience increased demand for his services.
A buyer possesses money. In the parable, this is the nobleman. He wants to maximize the rate of return on his capital. He must go on a journey. He needs active managers of his capital while he is absent. He plans to return. He wants to return to a more prosperous kingdom.
This is also true of the righteous steward. He has a task: to make a profit. He wants to make an above-average rate of return. This is how he demonstrates to the owner that he is worthy of even greater responsibility.
Success in business is not necessarily a test of success in politics. The two realms are different. Business is government by supply and demand. There should be open entry. There should not be a state-granted monopoly. Civil government asserts a monopoly of violence. It operates monopolistic legislatures, police forces, and courts. But with respect to financial success in history as a representative test of success in the post-resurrection world, Jesus’ pocketbook parables made plain to His listeners that business success is not only legitimate, it is representative of success beyond the grave. This fact legitimizes business as a calling.
Business is not supposed to be the worship of mammon: more for me in history. It is the worship of God: more for God in history. Business is trusteeship, not rebellion. Here is the covenantal issue:
Beware lest you say in your heart, ‘My power and the might of my hand have gotten me this wealth.’ You shall remember the Lord your God, for it is he who gives you power to get wealth, that he may confirm his covenant that he swore to your fathers, as it is this day (Deuteronomy 8:17–18).
The investor must serve the consumer in order to be successful. He searches for asset managers who can multiply his wealth. He lets them manage a portion of his capital. He tests their ability to forecast the future accurately.
He has money. He has a wide range of asset managers, all of whom want to manage his money. He wants positive performance. The best investment managers take only the richest clients. They are like jockeys who are fast. They sell their services to the highest bidders. They do not ride for poor stable owners. They ride for rich stable owners.
There are lots of money managers. A few are successful. Most are average. A few are terrible. Money managers sell services. They want rich investors as clients: more money invested per client. They start out by selling only to moderately wealthy investors. They must prove their abilities. The moderately wealthy investors give them an opportunity to prove themselves. The moderately wealthy investors hope that one of their management firms performs at an above-average rate. This is the only way they can get the services of a winner. The most successful managers do not take on clients of moderate wealth.
The market is unforgiving. People who are successful money managers under one set of conditions may do poorly when conditions change. Conditions always change. History is in constant flux. Very few investors make above-average returns in all market conditions.
Sellers of investment services must prove to existing clients and future clients that they can produce above-average rates of returns in some conditions, but not lose money when conditions change. They expect their clients to reinvest with them if they are successful. This is the model of the steward who made ten to one. He not only retained control over the new king’s capital; he was given additional capital to manage. Success breeds success. The greater your success, the more capital you will have under your authority. This is the way of the free market. It is also the way of the kingdom of God.
Jesus used pocketbook parables to get across fundamental theological ideas. Here is the idea: God rewards success—not just in business, but in every area of life.
There have been technological breakthroughs in pencil production ever since the late sixteenth century. The pencil is recognizably a pencil over time. But they keep getting less expensive. They are today a mass-market commodity. They are inexpensive. Children use them.
How did this take place? Through the free market process of innovation, capitalization, and above all price cutting. The manufacturers found ways to produce pencils of high quality for less money. This made the pencil a common tool of both production and consumption.
The process of innovation, capitalization, and price cutting led to breakthroughs in the production of raw materials, machines, and labor productivity. These innovations helped cut the cost of pencil production. This made possible price cutting in the market for pencils. New markets of new buyers opened up when pencils became less expensive. The way for a manufacturer to find new buyers is to cut his prices. People who before were unable to afford this kind of product now can afford to buy a few. Over time, buyers purchase even more. The item becomes a common consumer good. The industry no longer has a high rate of profit. The market becomes mature. Innovations become less spectacular. The market becomes more predictable.
It is unlikely that any fund manager would invest in a company that manufactures pencils. It is a mature industry. It is unlikely that any company will achieve above-average returns based on some breakthrough innovation. No one speaks of a pencil as being a “killer app.” It was in the late sixteenth century. It no longer is. A new pencil company would find it difficult to attract venture capital for a new line of pencils. Buyers are content with the existing technology.
The parable of the talents in Matthew emphasizes the final judgment. “For to everyone who has will more be given, and he will have an abundance. But from the one who has not, even what he has will be taken away. And cast the worthless servant into the outer darkness. In that place there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth” (Matthew 25:29–30). The parable of the minas in Luke emphasizes the post-resurrection kingdom of God. “Because you have been faithful in a very little, you shall have authority over ten cities” (Luke 19:17). Both rest on these principles of success. First, economic success is a success indicator for success in history. Second, success in history is a success indicator for success in eternity.
This is not what most Bible commentators have believed. They have not taken literally the context of these parables seriously: economics. They assume that noneconomic success means success in history. Worse, they believe that economic success is a testimony to kingdom failure. They do not believe that this passage in Luke refers to economic success: “. . . give, and it will be given to you. Good measure, pressed down, shaken together, running over, will be put into your lap. For with the measure you use it will be measured back to you” (Luke 6:38). Their interpretation means that Jesus consistently misused language. He spoke of kingdom success as economic success, yet supposedly He really meant the opposite. He supposedly used pocketbook parables to teach that economic matters are not related to spiritual matters, and in fact are the opposite of spiritual matters. If such a principle of textual interpretation is correct, then how were Jesus’ listeners supposed to make sense of what He taught? Why did He use pocketbook parables to persuade listeners to understand principles of the kingdom of God? The parable of the minas begins: “A nobleman went into a far country to receive for himself a kingdom and then return” (v. 12). What kind of kingdom was this? Who was this nobleman? If this does not refer to Jesus’ inheritance of the kingdom, what else could it refer to?
For as in Adam all die, so also in Christ shall all be made alive. But each in his own order: Christ the firstfruits, then at his coming those who belong to Christ. Then comes the end, when he delivers the kingdom to God the Father after destroying every rule and every authority and power. For he must reign until he has put all his enemies under his feet. The last enemy to be destroyed is death. For “God has put all things in subjection under his feet.” But when it says, “all things are put in subjection,” it is plain that he is excepted who put all things in subjection under him. When all things are subjected to him, then the Son himself will also be subjected to him who put all things in subjection under him, that God may be all in all (I Corinthians 15:22–28).
To understand success in history, we must first understand this success indicator in history: economic success. The two successful servants were investors whose investments produced above-average rates of return. The servant with the highest rate of return was entrusted with the capital that had been entrusted with the servant who had produced zero increase. The owner could have turned the coin over to the bankers and would have received a return greater than zero. So could the rebellious servant. Something is better than nothing. The servant did not honor this fundamental economic principle. That cost him success beyond the grave.
The issue is covenantal representation. Which God is represented by economic success: God or mammon? This depends on the oath/confession of the steward.
___________________________________________
For the rest of this book, go here: https://www.garynorth.com/public/department193.cfm
© 2022 GaryNorth.com, Inc., 2005-2021 All Rights Reserved. Reproduction without permission prohibited.