Surly Jesus

Luke 17:1-10

Much of the time in the Gospels, Jesus is not a very encouraging or pleasant fellow. Pasolini’s The Gospel According to St. Matthew really got this quality. In it, Jesus is difficult and even petulant. And it’s not just when he’s tossing money-changers from the temple. Even after his great triumphs, his miracles, it seems like he often retreats, withdraws from people. This passage in Luke is just one of many where he doesn’t offer much consolation. The apostles say “increase our faith,” help us out here, and he just responds if you had one iota of faith you’d be a regular Luke Skywalker, moving stuff around by the Force. “If you had faith the size of a mustard seed, you could say to this mulberry tree, ‘Be uprooted and planted in the sea,’ and it would obey you.”

In the final section offers no congratulations for faithfulness. "Who among you would say to your slave who has just come in from plowing or tending sheep in the field, 'Come here at once and take your place at the table'? Would you not rather say to him, 'Prepare supper for me, put on your apron and serve me while I eat and drink; later you may eat and drink'? Do you thank the slave for doing what was commanded? So you also, when you have done all that you were ordered to do, say, 'We are worthless slaves; we have done only what we ought to have done!'"

Although it’s a bit harsh, this is a kind of grace you do encounter in everyday life. Someone helps you out, and they say, “I’m just doing my job,” and it’s not false modesty, but a true sense that the person is simply doing what they are supposed to do, that anything less would be unacceptable. In that person’s eyes, all they’ve done is avoided screwing up. Help you solve a computer problem, give you a tow when your car breaks down, get some documentation faxed where you need it. It is reassuring when you see that convergence between someone’s role and beneficent actions. Goodness done not for the sake of congratulation.

But the other thing about this passage is that it has one of those jarring references to slavery that come up from time to time. The concept today signifies to a situation that absolutely must be corrected. When the word appears, you want the condition of slavery to be the focus of the passage and its overthrow the intention. Not spoken of as a natural state of affairs. Of course, Jesus is speaking in Biblical times, but wasn’t slavery wrong then as it is now? Can we permit ourselves a historical moral relativism on this matter, any more than we can on rape or genocide? And Jesus kind of rubs it in—“worthless slaves.” He asks people to excoriate themselves.

I think if you give credence to these words, acknowledge the words chosen and what they mean, they are hard to swallow. Slavery may be only a metaphor for a condition of spiritual dependence, with no justification in the human world. Still, why is it not permissible for us hold each other as chattel, but OK for God to do so? Is it because no human is righteous enough to deserve that right, but if by chance someone were to reach that state it would be a different matter. While it is impossible for a human to overcome sin to the extent that this question would be in play, is the idea that God wants us to move towards the state of slaveholder?

Jesus’ life gives me a break from this line of inquiry. Jesus of course made no attempt to lord it over us. He rejected Satan’s urging to use the power he had. So I guess I’m OK, but I don’t think we can get too comfortable with these slave/slaveholder references. It is important to let them shock a bit.