Does the Parable of the Minas Address the Delay of the Parousia? Luke 19,11–27 in its Lukan, Rhetorical and Roman Settings

1.1 The “Imminent” Reading

First, Luke T. Johnson and Ignace de la Potterie have argued that the parable concerns not the parousia but rather Jesus’ imminent inauguration of the kingdom. Johnson contends that Luke’s parable cannot be an allegory: delay has been imported into scholarly interpretation of the parable of the minas from Matthew’s parable of the talents. Instead Johnson takes the view that the immediate revelation of the kingdom of God is confirmed rather than denied by Jesus: the kingdom is evidenced in the acclamation of Jesus in 19,38,^[17] Jesus being called a king in the trial (23,2), and the man crucified alongside Jesus talking of Jesus entering his kingdom (23,42), which takes place “today” (23,43).^[18] De la Potterie’s view is not dissimilar, focusing more on the ascension.^[19] I pass lightly over these views as they have been strongly criticised elsewhere and have not penetrated the mainstream.^[20]

1.2 The Socio-Economic Reading

More recently, a popular reading of the parable sees the nobleman not as a cipher for Jesus, but instead as the villain. In the early 1990s, Richard Rohrbaugh labelled the parable “a text of terror,” noting further that “the master rewarded only those prepared to cooperate with him in his scheme of evil extortion.”^[21]

Elizabeth V. Dowling has provided the most substantial exposition along these lines.^[22] On her reading, the issue is not a contrast between near and distant parousia per se; rather, “the oppressive practices portrayed in the parable also indicate that the βασιλεία of God is not yet being experienced in all its fulness, correcting the expectations of the arrival of the βασιλεία triggered by the proximity to Jerusalem.”^[23] The parable therefore functions to “highlight the abuse of power by an oppressive ruler and the contrasting honorable actions of a slave, as well as illustrating the consequences of resisting an oppressive power.” On Luke’s understanding of the parable, “it is the third slave who is aligned with Jesus’ values.”^[24]

Others have followed a similar line. For Richard B. Vinson, the parable is a parody of Jesus’ teaching about the kingdom, and “part of Luke’s strategy for undermining early Christian expectations that Jesus would be a king.”^[25] The same goes for the parable’s depiction of discipleship: “So far in Luke, has there been any hint that unrestricted profit-taking was a good thing? Quite the contrary; so far in Luke, the right thing to do with one’s possessions is to give them away […]. This new king and his two trusted servants are a parody of Jesus’ teaching.”^[26]

Several articles by scholars based in South-Africa, Ernest van Eck (2011), Llewellyn Howes (2016) and J. Gertrud Tönsing (2019), also understand the nobleman in very critical terms: “The image of the master is decidedly negative, and could not have represented Jesus or God.”^[27] The parable responds to economic exploitation, and its “main intent was to illustrate how one can stand up to the reigning economic system of the elite without severely jeopardising one’s livelihood and thereby contribute to the establishment of God’s kingdom on earth.”^[28] The recent commentaries of David E. Garland (2012) and Robert L. Brawley (2020) take a similar view. For Garland, the parable’s main idea is that “the vengeful king contrasts with the rule of King Jesus, the Messiah, who comes into the world to bring peace and goes to Jerusalem to give his life for others, not to destroy them.”^[29] Brawley focuses on the “good” servant, remarking on the “incredible increase of 1,000 percent that could hardly be achieved except by some kind of exploitative behavior”.^[30] Howes sums up the implications of these readings: “If the socio-economic context of the parable is taken into consideration, it is impossible to understand any of the characters allegorically.”^[31]

The difficulty with this set of non-allegorical views is that they work for the parable considered as a free-floating parable, but do insufficient justice to the literary context in Luke. First, there is a very strong bond between the parable and the frame in verses 11–12. Jesus told the parable because he was near Jerusalem and because people thought (διὰ τὸ ἐγγὺς εἶναι Ἰερουσαλὴμ αὐτὸν καὶ δοκεῖν αὐτούς) that the kingdom of God would appear immediately. The causal link is then repeated in the following verse: “He therefore said (εἶπεν οὖν): ‘A man of noble birth went to a distant country […]’.”^[32] Since the fact that he was near Jerusalem was not in doubt, the point Jesus is addressing must be the expectation of an imminent kingdom.

Secondly, this passage resembles a set of passages in Luke-Acts which all address the timing of the kingdom (Lk. 17,20–37; 19,11–27; 21,7–36; Ac. 1,7–8). In the others, too, the nature of the kingdom is not at issue; only the timing is.^[33]

Thirdly, although the imagery is jarring,^[34] various parallels in Luke and elsewhere have unsavoury characters in parables denoting good characters in the outside world. The parable of the unjust judge in the previous chapter is an obvious example (Lk. 18,1–8), and Luke’s parable of the unjust steward is similar (16,1–9).^[35] In Luke 7,41–42 God is likened to a money-lender; in Gospel of Thomas 109, the true disciple “lends at interest”. In the parable of the wicked tenants God is an absentee landlord who ultimately kills his tenants (Lk. 19,9–18). In Matthew, the parable of the unmerciful servant records how the master treats the servant who refused to allow his debtor more time for repayment: “In anger his master handed him over to the jailers to be tortured, until he should pay back all he owed. This is how my heavenly Father will treat each of you unless you forgive your brother or sister from your heart” (Matt. 18,34–35). The same applies to the king in Matthew’s parable of the wedding banquet (22,1–14). The Gospel of Thomas has the parable of the assassin (Gos. Thom. 98), scholars understanding the assassin either as the disciple or as God.^[36] Notably, in the rabbinic parable of the king’s two servants, when the king goes away, one servant plants copious gardens, while the other does nothing; when the king returns he shows his pleasure to the former and his displeasure to the latter.^[37]

In sum, Luke’s immediate literary setting of the parable seems to demand a parable which deals with the timing of the kingdom’s arrival in some way. The other discussions in Luke-Acts of when the kingdom will come provide analogies for the parable, and the still wider character of parables both in Luke and elsewhere show that the negative and/or violent characterisation of figures in parables is no obstacle to their representing positive figures such as God or Jesus.

1.3 Luke 19,12–27 as an Allegorising Parable about the Parousia

To argue positively for a parable with allegorical features, we can note the numerous points of contact between the parable and how Luke depicts Jesus, his disciples and his opponents. The strongest and clearest evidence for the allegorising in the parable features in the rewards to the servants (verses 16–26), and especially in the rationales for the master rewarding them as he does.

The servants’ extravagant rewards and their rationales

The reports of the first and second servants (verses 16, 18) on their 1000 % and 500 % increases resemble the astronomical hundred-fold growth of the seed in Luke’s parable of the sower (10,000 %!), or the mustard seed which miraculously becomes a tree (Lk. 13,18–19). The servants’ rewards (verses 17, 19) are correspondingly extravagant: ten minas earn ten cities, and five minas five cities. Michael Wolter notes similar rewards for faithful servants elsewhere in Luke: in Luke 12, when the slaves prove reliable, the master himself waits upon them (v. 37); in the following parable, the paterfamilias puts the wise and faithful manager “in charge of all his possessions” (12,44).^[38] This motif corresponds to Jesus’ promise to his disciples: “I confer on you a kingdom, just as my Father conferred one on me, so that you may eat and drink at my table in my kingdom and sit on thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel” (Lk. 22,29–30). Similarly in Luke 12,32, Jesus promises his “little flock” that the Father will give them the kingdom.

Most instructive are the rationales for the king’s responses to the first and third servants. In both cases, the king’s words to them virtually quote Jesus’ teaching earlier in Luke:

Luke 16,10a: “The person who is trustworthy in something very small (πιστὸς ἐν ἐλαχίστῳ) can also be trusted with much […].”

Luke 19,17a: “‘Well done, my good servant!’ his master replied. ‘Because you have been trustworthy in something very small (ὅτι ἐν ἐλαχίστῳ πιστὸς ἐγένου) […].’”

In addition to the verbal similarly, the logic of the king’s actions is the same as that of God’s judgment.

In the case of the third servant, when the king is called upon to explain his apparently harsh treatment, he again echoes Jesus’ teaching:

Luke 8,18: “Whoever has will be given more; whoever does not have, even what they think they have will be taken from them (ὃς ἂν γὰρ ἔχῃ, δοθήσεται αὐτῷ· καὶ ὃς ἂν μὴ ἔχῃ, καὶ ὃ δοκεῖ ἔχειν ἀρθήσεται ἀπ’ αὐτοῦ).”

Luke 19,26: “He [sc. the master] replied, ‘I tell you that to everyone who has, more will be given, but as for the one who has nothing, even what they have will be taken from them (παντὶ τῷ ἔχοντι δοθήσεται, ἀπὸ δὲ τοῦ μὴ ἔχοντος καὶ ὃ ἔχει ἀρθήσεται).’”

Adjusting for the different syntax, the two statements are almost identical (cf. also Matt. 13,12; 25,29; Mk. 4,25). There is hardly room here for supposing satire. By comparison with Jesus’ usage earlier in the Gospel, the king uses the same words in very similar senses and contexts.

Overview

In addition to these specific points, there are broader correspondences between the parable and Luke’s world throughout the narrative of the minas.

Introductory summary (19,12): On Jesus as the “nobleman”, he is descended from (inter alios) Adam, Enoch, Noah, Shem, Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Judah, Boaz, Jesse, David and Zerubbabel – and of course God (Lk. 3,23–38). Elsewhere, Jesus is son of David (Lk. 1,32; 18,38–39), son of God (1,35; 4,3, 9, 41; 22,70), or son of the Most High (1,32; 8,28).

Going (ἐπορεύθη) to a distant country (19,12a): Compare Luke’s use of πορεύομαι in the description of Jesus’ ascent to heaven (Ac. 1,11). The ascension is crucial in Luke’s narrative and christology (Lk. 24,50; Ac. 3,21). See further the next item.

To have himself appointed king (19,12b): In Luke 1,32–33 God promises that Jesus will reign on David’s throne over Israel forever. Jesus’ ascent to rule on a heavenly throne features more explicitly elsewhere, e. g. Luke 22,69 (“from now on, the Son of Man will be seated at the right hand of the mighty God”). Jesus also comes into a kingdom (Lk. 23,42), and was “exalted to the right hand of God” (Ac. 2,33) in fulfilment of Psalm 110,1 (Ac. 2,35), and thereby appointed as “Lord and messiah” (2,36) or “prince and saviour” (5,31). The specific language of λαμβάνειν βασιλείαν is not used theologically by Luke (23,42 is the closest), but comes rather from the discourse of kings receiving their appointments.^[39]

And then return (19,12b): Jesus’ return is described several times in Luke-Acts (Lk. 17,24; 18,8; 21,27; Ac. 1,11), and mentioned in the cluster of parables in Luke 12,35–46.

Entrusting the minas to the servants (19,13a): The commissioning of the servants can be compared with Jesus’ commissioning of his apostles and others.^[40] They are Jesus’ witnesses and preachers, entrusted with the Holy Spirit (Lk. 24,46–49; Ac. 1,7–8; cf. 5,32). They act in Jesus’ name, on his behalf, not in their own power (Ac. 3,12, 16; 4,8–10). Paul becomes a chosen instrument of Christ speaking in the Lord’s name (9,15, 28; 16,18; cf. 19,13). As the nobleman commissions his servants or slaves (δοῦλοι), so Jesus’ followers are δοῦλοι of God/Jesus (Ac. 4,29; 16,17) and act in his service (δουλεύω, 20,19).^[41]

“Until I come back” (19,13b): On Jesus’ return, see already on 19,12b above. In 19,13b, the verb ἔρχομαι is used for what symbolically represents Jesus’ return, as in the theological statements in Luke 18,8; 21,27; Acts 1,11.^[42]

The delegation of the citizens (19,14): The delegation motif is strongly coloured by the client-king discourse (cf. section 3 below). Luke does, however, emphasise Jesus’ rejection by his fellow Jews.^[43] Jesus envisages opposition continuing against his envoys (Lk. 11,49; 21,12–17), and Paul’s antagonism towards followers of Jesus is described six times as persecution of Jesus himself (Ac. 9,4, 5; 22,7, 8; 26,14, 15).

The coronation and return (19,15a): See on 19,12b and 19,13b above.

The killing of the enemies (19,27): One prominent label for Jesus’ opponents is “this generation”, which will be condemned at the parousia (Lk. 11,29–30). Luke 20,43 and Acts 2,35 quote Psalm 110 and thereby prophecy the subjugation of Jesus’ enemies; Luke 12,8–9 also refers to Jesus’ opponents condemned at the parousia. Since the allegorical reference of Luke 19,27 is probably the fall of Jerusalem, however, Luke’s depictions of the events of 70 CE are therefore more relevant:^[44] e. g. this generation being held responsible (Lk. 11,50) is probably a reference to the fall of Jerusalem; clearer is Luke 13,6–9 (similarly 20,16); and explicit are Luke 19,41–44, where Jerusalem will fall because it did not recognise God’s coming in Jesus, and 13,34–35, where the destruction of the temple is noted (cf. 21,20–24; 23,28–31).

1.4 Conclusion

Despite the recent popularity of a non-allegorical reading of the parable, a wealth of material in the rest of Luke-Acts resembles the elements of the parable closely enough to clue the reader into the encoded references. Although not a straight allegory, the parable clearly has allegorical features. This is most evident in the ways in which the king explains his treatments of the first and third servants. As Sharon H. Ringe rightly notes,

The allegorical equivalents are clear: After the crucifixion and resurrection, Jesus leaves the disciples and ascends to sit at God’s right hand. In the meantime, until his return at the final judgment, Jesus has entrusted his followers to carry on his ministry and to make it “prosper” and grow into the mission of the church. At an appropriate time, the risen Christ will return to demand an account of what they have done with the responsibility entrusted to them and to punish those who have been his enemies.^[45]

As we will see in the subsequent sections, however, reference to the parousia in the parable does not necessitate an allusion to delay.

3.1 Herod the Great (73 BCE – 5/4 BCE?)

The first figure to consider is Herod the Great himself. After appointments under Julius Caesar (ca 47 BCE) and Cassius (ca 46 BCE),^[58] Herod was assigned a tetrarchy by Antony (ca 41 BCE).^[59] As in the parable, this occurs in the teeth of complaints from several anti-Herod delegations.^[60] Herod’s position in his tetrarchy was under severe threat from the Parthians (Ant. 14.348–351). He therefore fled, ultimately reaching Alexandria (J.W. 1.277–279; Ant. 14.374–375). From there, he headed to Rome, sailing in the autumn of 40 BCE to Pamphylia, but because of the adverse conditions stayed for a time in Rhodes (J.W. 1.279–280; Ant. 14.377). There he had a trireme built, and sailed through the winter, landing at Brundisium (on the east coast, on the “heel” of Italy), from where he “hastened” to Rome (J.W. 1.281; Ant. 14.377–379). Both Antony and Octavian were keen to assist Herod, and the Senate conferred royal power upon him (Ant. 14.384–385).^[61] This resulted from both the long-standing friendship between Herod’s family and the Caesarian party, and the desire of the Romans to solidify their position against the Parthians on the eastern frontier. Josephus remarked that Antony decided “there and then” (καὶ τότε) to make Herod king (J.W. 1.282); he notes that the whole business in Italy was concluded in seven days, after which Herod left and sailed to Ptolemais in Galilee (J.W. 1.290; Ant. 14.388, 394). When he finally regained control of Jerusalem, he massacred the partisans of Antigonus, the Parthian puppet-king, in 37 BCE (J.W. 1.358).

The main differences in reconstructions of the chronology concern how long Herod’s stay in Rhodes would have lasted; most scholars assume it is short, but Nikos Kokkinos suggests that building a trireme would have taken longer. Either way, while the journey to Rome was rather longer than planned due to the weather and the need to stop in Rhodes, it was not necessarily very protracted. The business in Rome itself (in late 40 BCE) was conducted very swiftly, in a matter of a week, and Herod left almost immediately for what appears to be an unproblematic journey home to Ptolemais. The two versions of events are thus as follows:

The events surrounding Herod’s first coronation therefore took, from start to finish (Alexandria to Rome to Ptolemais), well under a year (autumn 40 – spring 39 BCE). On Kokkinos’s chronology, although he requires a longer stay in Rhodes, the total time away would only have been slightly longer and still less than a year.^[64]

3.2 Archelaus (ca 27 BCE – post 20 CE), Antipas (ca 25 BCE – post 39 CE) and Philip (ca 26 BCE – 33/34 CE)

Herod’s last will nominated Archelaus as his successor as king of Judaea, but detaching Galilee and Trachonitis, which he assigned as tetrarchies to Antipas and Philip respectively.^[65] Josephus depicts Archelaus as anxious to go to Rome and have his rule ratified by Augustus as quickly as possible after Herod’s death in 4 BCE (Ant. 17.208).

Archelaus left Jerusalem shortly after Passover, at which he disgraced himself by engaging in slaughter (Ant. 17.213–218), but certainly before Pentecost in 4 BCE: he did not hear about the chaos in Judaea at that time until he was in Rome (J.W. 2.42). Archelaus set sail for Rome from Caesarea, with several family members and friends (Ant. 17.220–222).

Antipas also set sail for Rome to claim the throne at roughly the same time (κατὰ τοῦτον τὸν καιρόν), encouraged by family members that he had the greater right, and ignoring appeals to stand down (Ant. 17.224–226). There followed a trial before Augustus over the will. Before a decision was made, reports came of the disturbances in Judaea. A delegation of Jews arrived in Rome asking for autonomy, i. e. the dissolution of the monarchy and the installation of a Roman governor (Ant. 17.300–314). There are therefore two counter-delegations to Archelaus’ visit to Rome: that of Antipas, and that of the “republican” autonomists.

Philip also then arrived, adding further complexity to the situation (Ant. 17.303).

After hearing the various speeches, Augustus pronounced his decision a few days later (ὀλίγων δ’ ἡμερῶν ὕστερον). He appointed Archelaus over Judaea, but only as ethnarch (Ant. 17.317).^[66] Strictly speaking then, Archelaus did not achieve what takes place in the parable of the minas, although there is some evidence that he was informally known as king.^[67] The other half of the kingdom was divided, following Herod’s will, between Antipas and Philip.

The chronology of the expedition is reasonably straightforward. If we accept the year of 4 BCE for Herod’s death,^[68] there is broad agreement between Harold W. Hoehner and Kokkinos on an approximate timeline:

This more detailed itemisation comes from Hoehner, with his illustrative dates.^[72] With the revolt in Judaea at a high point at Pentecost (1 June), Varus probably shortly afterwards sent his report to Rome: this might have taken a couple of months to arrive. Assuming roughly that Varus had regained control of the situation in Judaea in, say, August, and then set off for Rome with Philip, this would mean – allowing again a couple of months for the journey – that he would have reached Rome around October. Philip and Varus therefore arrived in the midst of all the trial proceedings. This chronology therefore implies that the brothers probably wintered in Rome before the beginning of the sailing season in 3 BCE. Following roughly the chronology of Hoehner, then, the brothers’ expeditions probably took a little less than a year.

It is possible that the absence was shorter still. Varus would no doubt have sent his report, and travelled himself to Rome, as quickly as possible: the journey could be managed in under a month. Kokkinos places Archelaus’ journey to Rome “in the early summer of 4 (or 5) BCE to claim the throne of Judaea”,^[73] and some, by fitting the chronology of the priesthood together, identify Archelaus’ replacement of Joazar with Eleazar in the high priesthood in 4 BCE as well^[74] – something which Archelaus only did on his return from Rome. If this is correct, Archelaus went to Rome and back in 4 BCE (after Herod the Great’s death in March of that year).

Finally, having noted earlier that there were two counter-delegations to Archelaus’s visit to Rome, one of which was from Jews wanting direct Roman government, we can note as reminiscent of the parable the character of Archelaus’s rule: “When he took up his ethnarchy, Archelaus, remembering old contentions, treated brutally not only the Jews but also the Samaritans” (J.W. 2.111).^[75]

3.3 Agrippa I (11/10 BCE – 44 CE)

Herod the Great’s grandson Agrippa I was “the last king of Judaea” and the subject of Josephus’s θαύματος ἀξιώτατον narrative.^[76] To sow the seeds for his ambitions, Agrippa had spent a great deal of money on his connections in Rome in the early 30s (Ant. 18.145).^[77]

Agrippa I’s visit in 36 CE

His visit to Rome in the year before Tiberius died (36 CE) was particularly important,^[78] its purpose being “to transact some business with the emperor” or “to gain something from the emperor”.^[79] Tiberius initially refused to see him, but Agrippa eventually entered the Tiberian circle.^[80] There Agrippa paid particular court to Gaius (Ant. 18.166), a potential successor to Tiberius who by that time was in his late 70s. Disaster struck when Agrippa was overheard saying that he wished Tiberius would soon give way, one way or another, to Gaius; Agrippa was imprisoned in September 36 for the rest of Tiberius’ principate. When Tiberius died six months later, Gaius succeeded him and released Agrippa immediately: Josephus reports that on the death of Tiberius, Gaius sent a message to the Senate saying that he himself had acceded to the imperial throne, and that Agrippa was to be released (Ant. 18.234). The next chain of events is also fast: “not many days after” the funeral, Gaius crowned Agrippa over what had been Philip’s tetrarchy and (perhaps) Lysanias’s realm (Ant. 18.237; Philo, Flacc. 25).^[81] Agrippa intended to take his leave immediately, but Gaius persuaded him not to go. Then, in Gaius’ second year, 38 CE, Agrippa left Rome (Ant. 18.238). Hence:^[82]

The location of Agrippa’s return is uncertain, but he clearly went somewhere in his new kingdom (Ant. 18.238).

Agrippa I’s visit in 39 CE

On his departure from Rome, Agrippa promised to revisit the city, and he apparently did so shortly afterwards.^[85] The occasion for this quick return was that in 38/39 CE, according to Josephus, Antipas’s wife Herodias was incensed by Agrippa I’s return to the east with a royal throne and she therefore urged Antipas on to seek a crown.^[86] Herod Antipas thus set sail for Rome (Ant. 18.246), and so Agrippa resolved to go to Rome to thwart him. He initially sent letters and gifts by hand of his freedman Fortunatus (Ant. 18.247), but seems also to have gone himself in 39 CE (J.W. 2.183). Agrippa’s countermeasure was successful: Antipas never returned to govern, but was stripped of his tetrarchy by Gaius and exiled (Ant. 18.252). The hapless royal pretension of Antipas was a stroke of luck for Agrippa, who received the tetrarchy of Galilee and Peraea when it was confiscated from Antipas (Ant. 18.240). This probably took place the year after Agrippa’s arrival in his kingdom: Cassius Dio reports that Agrippa was with Gaius (in Gaul?) in the winter of 39–40 CE (Cassius Dio 59.24.1).

Agrippa I’s sphere was expanded further still on the accession of Claudius after Gaius’s assassination in January 41 CE.^[87] Agrippa in fact played an important role in Claudius’ accession to the imperial purple.^[88] Now Agrippa possessed the whole of Herod the Great’s domain.^[89] To establish this, Claudius and Agrippa declared a treaty, and Herod was permitted to address the Senate (Cassius Dio 60.8.3: see further below). Although the timing of the various events is uncertain, Kokkinos plausibly proposes:^[90]

Kokkinos concludes that “Agrippa stayed at Rome until the late summer of 41, many months after Caligula’s death and the accession of Claudius”.^[91] It is not altogether clear that this much time (“many months”) is required, however. Gaius was assassinated in January, and Josephus presents the events following as if they proceeded in a brisk manner. After Gaius’ death in Ant. 19.110–113, a detailed description of the course of events of that same day follows,^[92] after which Josephus gives a summary of Gaius’s principate (Ant. 19.201–211). Then comes the account of Claudius’s activity on the day of Gaius’s death, especially his interactions with the Senate and Agrippa.^[93] Agrippa was summoned by the Senate to act as a go-between between them and Claudius, then another gathering of the Senate was convened at night (Ant. 19.248): all this has apparently been happening on a single day. The next day begins at Ant. 19.254, and then “a few days later” the Parentalia (February 13–21) were celebrated (Ant. 19.272).^[94] Immediately after this (Ant. 19.274) we read that Agrippa’s rule is confirmed.^[95]

There is a stretch of time required, however, (a) to account for news of Gaius’s assassination to reach Alexandria, which sparked the conflict between Greeks and Jews in Alexandria (Ant. 19.278), and (b) for news of the conflict in turn to come to Rome. Claudius then ordered the prefect of Alexandria to put down the fighting, and – at the urging of Agrippa and Herod of Chalcis – issued decrees in support of the Jews in Alexandria (Ant. 19.280–285), and in the rest of the empire (Ant. 19.286–291). Thereafter the pace quickens. Claudius despatched Agrippa “immediately” (αὐτίκα, Ant. 19.292) to his kingdom, and Agrippa for his part returned μετὰ τάχους (Ant. 19.293). The only evidence of Agrippa’s stay in Rome being lengthened after Claudius’ accession and the expansion of Agrippa’s territory is therefore the time required for a journey to and from Alexandria.^[96] The best that can be hazarded is a very rough chronology, supposing (a) around 4–5 months from Claudius’ accession to the news of the Alexandrian trouble reaching Rome, and (b) that Agrippa sails home as soon as his diplomacy on behalf of Alexandrian Jewry is complete:

To conclude our tale of the colourful Agrippa I, his first visit to Rome – when he was made king – lasted a little over two years, and the second was perhaps a little shorter.

3.4 Herod of Chalcis (10/9 BCE – 48 CE)

Herod of Chalcis conducted the first fifty years of his life in relative obscurity, only entering public life in 41 CE.^[97] At the same time that Claudius gave his first territorial gift to Agrippa I, the new emperor (at Agrippa’s request, according to Ant. 19.277) also granted Herod the kingdom of Chalcis (J.W. 2.217), in central Ituraea. If not in Rome already, this Herod must have travelled to Rome for the occasion of his coronation.^[98] Claudius made a treaty with Agrippa in a public ceremony in the Forum (Ant. 19.275),^[99] and Herod and Agrippa were both permitted to speak in the Senate (Cassius Dio 60.8.3). These appellationes are confirmed by the numismatic evidence, which has both Agrippa I and Herod of Chalcis placing wreaths upon Claudius’ head (see Figures 1 and 2). Herod departed to Chalcis in late 41 CE,^[100] but we have no information about the duration of this stay.

3.5 Agrippa II (27/28 – 94/95 CE)

Agrippa II received several grants of power. First, he was crowned over the kingdom of Chalcis on Herod’s death, i. e. sometime in 48/49 CE (Ant. 20.104; J.W. 2.223). Secondly, possibly while he was still in Rome,^[101] Claudius in 53 CE exchanged his kingdom of Chalcis for a larger domain.^[102] Agrippa II must have been in the east after that (if not before), because he assisted Rome in the conflict with Parthia in 54 CE.^[103] As a result of that assistance, thirdly, Nero extended Agrippa’s realm in 54/55 CE to include also “the Galilean districts of Tiberias, Tarichaea, Bethsaida-Julias, as well as territory in southern Peraea” (J.W. 2.252; Ant. 20.159).^[104] Finally, Agrippa II again visited Rome in 75 CE, when he received praetorian status (Cassius Dio 65.15.3–4); Photius derives from Justus of Tiberias the information that Agrippa II also later received land (of unspecified extent) from Vespasian (Bibl. 33).^[105] However, despite these numerous grants of territory to Agrippa II, it is difficult to know much about the dates of his movements.

3.6 Conclusion

It is easy to assume that in the ancient world travelling, especially by sea, was a long and expensive process, subject to delays because of the weather or political events. This is indeed the case. But it is also easy to exaggerate the length and inconvenience. According to the marvellous ORBIS tool, to sail from Alexandria to Rome could take as little as 18 days, and the return journey a mere 14 days; and from Caesarea Maritima to Rome the journey could be 23 days, and only 18 days back.^[106] These timings are of course minimums, but it is clear that – as in the case of Herod the Great’s coronation – the whole process, even when long lay-overs are involved, could take place in well under a year. The visit of Archelaus, Antipas and Philip took (on Hoehner’s dating) about a year, or even less (on Kokkinos’s reconstruction). Agrippa I went for two years on his first visit, detained by a spell in jail and by Gaius’s arm-twisting: he was an exception in being subject to two delays in this instance. In the end, he was in Rome for almost the entirety of Gaius’s principate: his second visit sought to dash Antipas’s hopes of a crown.

Such counter-delegations to Herodians’ visits to receive appellationes were frequent. Herod the Great faced opposition, as did his heir Archelaus, from rival family members as well as from an anti-monarchy faction of Jews. As just noted, when Antipas sought a throne, Agrippa I set off to Rome to thwart him. Although Herod the Great prevailed over his opponents, the other two pretenders were frustrated: Archelaus received not the crown but an ethnarchy, and Antipas was completely undone, not only losing his tetrarchy but being sent into exile to boot. The opponents in the parable might therefore be forgiven for thinking that they too might be successful.

The main point to note here, however, is that there is no need to suppose that, in alluding to client kings’ visits to Rome, the parable of the minas intends to draw attention to a protracted delay of the parousia. While this discussion has been a lengthy process, delaying us from proceeding to the exegesis of Luke, delay was not a problem for most royal claimants.

Figure 1:

Obverse: ΒΑΣ ΑΓΡΙΠΠΑΣ – ΣΕΒ ΚΑΙΣΑΡ – ΒΑΣ ΗΡΩΔΗΣ

Classical Numismatic Group, LLC.^[107]

Figure 2:

Obverse: BAΣΙΛ ΗΡΩΔHΣ BAΣΙΛ AΓΡΙΠΠΑΣ | | ΚΛΑΥΔΙΟΣ ΚΑΙΣΑΡ ΣΕΒΑΣΤΟΣ

BM (British Museum) 1985,1002.1. Wikimedia commons.^[108]

4.1 Compression in the Summary and Actions of the Throne Claimant (19,12, 13, 15)

The beginning of the parable, v. 12, is a short narrative summary: ἄνθρωπός τις εὐγενὴς ἐπορεύθη εἰς χώραν μακρὰν λαβεῖν ἑαυτῷ βασιλείαν καὶ ὑποστρέψαι. The effect of this summary is to compress the story: the statement telescopes the going, the receiving of the kingdom, and the return into a single sentence ἐπορεύθη … λαβεῖν … καὶ ὑποστρέψαι. This compression is the very opposite of seeking to convey a long, drawn-out series of events.^[110]

In v. 13, all the preparation for the departure is limited to 17 mostly short words, and the actual departure itself is not even mentioned. Rather, the whole journey is summarised in the phrase ἐν ᾧ ἔρχομαι (19,13). The same is true of the king’s return: v. 15 is also very compact, compressing the action of the nobleman’s acquisition of the throne and his return into two subordinate clauses: Καὶ ἐγένετο ἐν τῷ ἐπανελθεῖν αὐτὸν λαβόντα τὴν βασιλείαν.

4.2 The Parabolic Motif of Far-Off Travel (19,12a)

Foreign travel does not necessarily imply protracted delay or long-term absence in other parables.^[111] For example, in the parable of the sea-faring son (Deut. Rab. on Deut. 4,25–26), the emphasis is on the distance between God and Israel when the latter is in tribulation, i. e. it reflects the experience of emotional distance from God’s blessing.^[112] In the parable of the king’s daughters getting married (Pesiq. Rab Kah. 11.6), the journey of the king to a distant land highlights the fact that Israel is alone on the earth and subject to the mockery of the nations.^[113] Similarly in the parable of the compassionate father and his runaway son (Pesiq. Rab. 44), the point is the moral distance between Israel and God prior to the nation’s repentance and divine action.^[114]

In several of these parables the point of the departure of the main character (i. e. God) is to remove him from the stage so that the focus is on the human actors. In other words, such a parable draws attention to human agency, especially of those who have been left behind with responsibility or the duty to be faithful:

• The parable of the unselfish steward (Sifre Deut. 11).^[115] A king (God) goes across the sea leaving his small son (Israel).^[116] He does not entrust all his possessions to the son, in case the son squanders them. He leaves the son in the care of a steward (Moses), but the son complains that the steward is not as generous as the king.

• The parable of the wedding after waves (Exod. Rab. 19,7).^[117] This time it is the wife (Israel) who has come from across the sea to the king (God). On her journey, she was violently buffeted by waves (at the Red Sea), but the king tells her on her arrival to think not of the waves but of the joy of her return (i. e. celebrate the passover).

• The parable of the sailor’s wife (Eccl. Rab. 9.8.1).^[118] A sailor (God) goes away and leaves his wife (Israel) behind. She dresses finely (avoids transgression) among her neighbours, who ask her why she does this. She replies that she does this in case her husband has favourable winds and returns quickly.

• The parable of the virtuous woman (Cant. Rab. 7.14.1).^[119] Here the king (God) went away leaving his wife (Israel) with little money and only a few possessions, but on his return she was able to say that she had not only saved what he left but added to it.

• The parable of the lying steward (Pesiq. Rab Kah. 14.5).^[120] Here the king (God) goes across the sea but beforehand leaves all his possessions (Israel) with his steward (Pharaoh). The steward denied that the king was his master and refused to return the deposit. Only after torture did the steward relent and return the deposit.

• The parable of the faithful queen (Pesiq. Rab Kah. 19.4).^[121] When the king (God) goes away “to a country across the sea,” it is a test of the wife’s (Israel’s) faithfulness when her companions (the nations) mock her and tell her to take up with another man (a foreign god).

• The parable of the king’s two servants (Tanna děbe Eliyyahu (28) 26).^[122] The king (God) went away to a city far across the sea: while he was away, one of his servants planted lots of orchards (illustrating love for God) and the other did nothing (illustrating awe of God). When the king returned he showed pleasure to the former and displeasure to the latter.

• The parable of the consort and the maidservant (Midr. Tanch., ed. Buber, on Num. 16,23).^[123] A king (God) goes off to a foreign province leaving his wife (Israel) and her maidservant (the nations) behind. The maidservant mocks the queen but the queen remains confident that she will be loved and reckoned more beautiful when the king returns.

• The parable of the queen and the maidservants (Midr. Tanch.-Yelammedenu, on Exod. 34,1).^[124] A king (God) went away to a distant province. While he was away there was gossip about the queen (Israel) among the servants, and the rumours reached the king. His advisor (Moses) tore up the marriage contract (the tablets). When the king returned, however, he found that she had done nothing wrong but that the maidservants had acted shamefully.

These few examples illustrate the way in which the point of these parables about the king’s departure are precisely not to focus on the action of the king (God) but to bring to the fore how human beings (especially Israel) fulfil their responsibility to their absent husband/master, not least in the context of temptations or taunts from the other nations. This focus on human responsibility is clearly the point also of the parable of the wicked tenants in the Synoptic tradition, where similarly the vineyard-owner also went away. The same is true of the parable of the sower: despite its conventional name, the sower is dispensed with after the first verse, and the focus (at least in Luke) is on human response (cf. Lk. 8,18).^[125]

4.3 The Identity of the Slaves (19,15b)

E. Earle Ellis comments that when the nobleman returns, the same people whom he entrusted with the minas are still there to give their account of what they have done (implying that there is no delay).^[126] At the same time, Jan Lambrecht’s remark that it is “incredible” that Luke is not reckoning with “the parousia of the Lord in his own lifetime” is without justification.^[127] One cannot infer much about a short or long duration of the end from the characters in the parable, any more than the same tenants killing both the prophets and the son implies in the parable of the tenants that the Hebrew prophets and Jesus the Son belong to the same generation.

4.4 The Proportions of the Parable

The point noted above about Rabbinic parables which focus on human responsibility is also mirrored in the structure of the parable of the minas. When plotting out the parable we can see how little focus there is on the royal claimant and, conversely, how much attention there is on those left behind:

In short, the framing of the parable in terms of the nobleman plot is summarised in one verse (19,12), referred to in a brief relative clause in the next (ἐν ᾧ ἔρχομαι) in v. 13; then the receipt of the kingdom and return are epitomised in the first third of v. 15. Thereafter, the rest of v. 15 up to v. 26 is all concerned with the actions of the servants and how their master treats them.^[128] Additionally, two verses deal with the actions of the enemies and how they are treated as a result. In sum, the focus of the parable is very much on human responsibility and divine judgment, rather than any consideration of time.

4.5 The Details of the Parable: Conclusion

To sum up the point here, there is nothing in the parable to suggest delay. There is a rejection of the Nächsterwartung evinced in Luke 19,11, but nothing in the parable indicates protracted delay. The narrative techniques of compression and the proportions of the parable, along with the wider literary context of journey-parables, indicate that there is no focus on length of time.