The Parable of the Unforgiving Servant

Peter asked Jesus how often forgiveness should be granted (Mt 18:21), and Jesus replied that it is to be given without limit (Mt 18:22). To illustrate his point, Jesus told the parable of the unforgiving servant (Mt 18:23-34). In this parable, Jesus warned his disciples of the consequences of not giving forgiveness (Mt 18:35).

The parable involves a servant who owes a great debt to his master but is forgiven by the master. However, this forgiven servant later refuses to forgive a fellow servant who owes him a much smaller debt. This story serves as a powerful example of the importance of forgiveness and the consequences of failing to forgive. Jesus warns that if his disciples do not forgive others as they have been forgiven by God, they will face the same treatment as the unmerciful servant in the parable.

I have already written my reflection on the Gospel reading (Mt 18:21-35), focusing on the value of forgiveness on personal and communal levels. The mercy of God is not only limited to us and we are made responsible for forgiving others. How are we responding to God's mercy? Does it end with us or do we extend it to others?

In this reflection, I would like to focus my attention on the parable itself, which is unique in the Gospel of Matthew. Luke deals with unlimited forgiveness (Lk 17:4) but provides no warning about the consequences of unforgiveness for servants who have already been forgiven.

The contrast in attitude between the forgiving master and the unforgiving servant can be better understood if we consider the repayment of debt during the time of Jesus. In particular, let us explore the debt cancellation during the Sabbatical and Jubilee years of the Jewish people.

Exodus 22:25 and Leviticus 25:35 both forbid charging interest when lending money to those in need. In agricultural countries, however, farmers are forced to borrow money for planting and hope for a good harvest, allowing them to pay the lenders with profit from the loan. This practice still occurs in our country, where the rich profit from the work of poor farmers. This was also practiced among the Jewish people, including the time of Jesus.

The question often centers on the morality of profit. In business ethics, profit is generally considered morally acceptable when it is earned through ethical business practices. This means that a company or individual should not engage in activities that harm others, exploit workers, deceive customers, or damage the environment in pursuit of profit.

Ethical profit often involves paying fair wages and providing reasonable working conditions to employees. It is important for businesses to treat their workers with dignity and respect, ensuring that they receive compensation that allows them to meet their basic needs. In contrast, unethical profit is earned through exploitative, fraudulent, or harmful means, which is generally considered immoral. The negative effect is wealth inequality. Excessive profit can contribute to wealth inequality when a small percentage of individuals or corporations amass significant wealth while many others struggle to make ends meet.

Unethical profit in an agricultural setting, where wealthy individuals or entities charge high interest rates to farmers, can have serious consequences for both the farmers and the broader community. This practice is often referred to as predatory lending or usury when it involves exploiting the financial vulnerability of farmers. Charging exorbitant interest rates to farmers who are already financially vulnerable can be seen as an exploitative practice. It takes advantage of the farmers' need for capital to sustain their operations or invest in their farms. High-interest rates can lead to a cycle of debt for farmers, making it difficult for them to break free from financial burdens. This can result in farmers losing their land, livelihoods, and even their homes. When farmers are burdened with high levels of debt due to unfair interest rates, it can negatively affect agricultural productivity. Farmers may cut corners, reduce investments in sustainable practices, or be forced to sell their land to larger, wealthier entities. The practice of charging exorbitant interest rates to farmers contributes to income inequality in rural areas, concentrating wealth in the hands of a few while impoverishing the majority of small-scale farmers.

During the Sabbatical Year, which occurred every seven years, all debts among fellow Israelites were to be forgiven or canceled. This included both monetary debts and debts related to the exchange of property. It was a form of debt relief designed to prevent the long-term servitude and impoverishment of individuals. Debt cancellation during the Sabbatical Year promoted social equality, ensuring that no one would be permanently enslaved or trapped in a cycle of debt. It allowed for a fresh start for those who had fallen into financial hardship. In addition to debt relief, the Sabbatical Year also required the land to rest. Agricultural fields were not to be sown or harvested during this year. This practice allowed the land to rejuvenate and helped to prevent soil depletion.

The Sabbatical Year had spiritual and religious significance, seen as an expression of trust in God's provision. By allowing the land to rest and forgiving debts, it demonstrated reliance on God's abundance and mercy. The cancellation of debt every seven years fostered a sense of community and mutual support, discouraging exploitation and encouraging care for one another's well-being. This practice reinforced moral and ethical values within the community, encouraging compassion, generosity, and the idea that material possessions should not be pursued at the expense of fellow citizens' well-being.

The Jubilee year, occurring every 50 years, was a time of restoration and renewal. It signified a fresh start for individuals and families who might have fallen into debt and economic hardship, allowing them to regain their economic footing. Debt forgiveness during the Jubilee was fundamentally an act of social justice, preventing the accumulation of generational poverty and social inequality by redistributing land periodically to its original owners or their heirs. This prevented a small elite from permanently monopolizing land and wealth. Debt forgiveness in the Jubilee year was particularly beneficial for vulnerable populations who might have been forced into debt slavery or faced severe economic hardship. It provided a safety net and prevented exploitation. Debt forgiveness during the Sabbatical and Jubilee years was seen as a fulfillment of God's covenant with the Israelites, reflecting God's concern for justice, compassion, and the well-being of His people.

Returning to the parable, it is often interpreted without due consideration of the economic inequality between the master and the servant. The master can easily forgive the debt because such an action may not adversely affect his wealth and economic status. In contrast, the servant cannot easily forgive the debt of his fellow servant because by doing so, the uncollected debt may have an adverse effect on his economic well-being. Therefore, the collection of debt must be imposed on the debtor.

However, the parable tells us that the master was angry because the servant whose debt was forgiven did not show mercy to his debtor. The servant’s debt was described as a "huge amount" that could be repaid by selling his family into slavery and confiscating his property. In contrast, the debt of the fellow servant is described as a "much smaller amount." Thus, the focus is shifted to the limitless mercy of the Father, and we, whether rich or poor, are forgiven not because of our own merits but despite our status in life.

As we discussed above, the cancellation or forgiveness of debt during the Sabbatical and Jubilee years is meant to restore justice in the land. The cancellation or forgiveness of debt is an act of social justice as it corrects the concentration of wealth in the hands of a few while impoverishing the majority of small-scale farmers.

In the early Christian communities, as described in the Acts of the Apostles, the Christians "devoted themselves to the apostles' teaching and to fellowship, to the breaking of bread and to prayer." (Acts 2:42) They "were of one heart and mind" and "shared everything they had," and "no one was in need." (Acts 4:32-34)

In the Second Reading (Rom 14:7-9), Paul said that as Christians, our lives are to be lived in service and devotion to the Lord, and even in death, we belong to Him. As Christians, we are called to live in a way that goes beyond our own self-interests. Instead of living solely for our own desires, ambitions, or comforts, we are called to live for the Lord and for the benefit of others. In a culture that puts emphasis on the individual, this exhortation to die to oneself and live for the Lord is counter-cultural.

Henri Nouwen described community as the quality of the heart where we put into practice this dying of oneself for others. "The word "community" has many connotations, some positive, some negative. Community can make us think of a safe togetherness, shared meals, common goals, and joyful celebrations. It can also call forth images of sectarian exclusivity, in-group language, self-satisfied isolation, and romantic naiveté. However, community is first of all a quality of the heart. It grows from the spiritual knowledge that we are alive not for ourselves but for one another. Community is the fruit of our capacity to make the interests of others more important than our own (see Philippians 2:4). The question, therefore, is not “How can we make community?” but “How can we develop and nurture giving hearts?”

And, for Henri Nouwen, forgiveness is the cement that holds together the individuals into community life: “Community is not possible without the willingness to forgive one another “seventy-seven times” (see Matthew 18:22). Forgiveness is the cement of community life. Forgiveness holds us together through good and bad times, and it allows us to grow in mutual love. But what is there to forgive or to ask forgiveness for? As people who have hearts that long for perfect love, we have to forgive one another for not being able to give or receive that perfect love in our everyday lives. Our many needs constantly interfere with our desire to be there for the other unconditionally. Our love is always limited by spoken or unspoken conditions. What needs to be forgiven? We need to forgive one another for not being God!” Forgiveness is the cement that holds us together through thick and thin, allowing us to grow in mutual love.

Paul said, "Bear with each other and forgive whatever grievances you may have against one another. Forgive as the Lord forgave you. Let the peace of Christ rule in your hearts, since as members of one body you were called to peace. And be thankful." (Col 3:13, 15)