If you read the parable of the unforgiving debtor through a lawyer’s eyes, it turns into almost a courtroom puzzle about debt forgiveness, abuse of rights, and the consequences of one’s own conduct. Jesus frames the story pointedly in legal terms: there is a creditor, a debtor, a deadline for performance, enforcement, a plea for delay, discharge of the debt, a second creditor’s dispute, imprisonment and, finally, a revisiting of the original decision.
Facts of the case. Let us provisionally call it “The King v. the Servant Who Misunderstood the Nature of Mercy.” The defendant owes the king an enormous sum—10,000 talents. This is not merely “a lot of money.” In the context of the parable the figure is practically hyperbolic: such a private debt cannot realistically be repaid. Jesus once said that to whom little is forgiven, he loves little. Accordingly, there are cases of forgiveness of an unbelievably large debt, almost of astronomical scale.
The king demands payment. There is no money. The collection procedure is draconian: the sale of the debtor, his family and his goods. The debtor pleads, “Be patient with me, and I will pay you everything.” From a legal standpoint his plea is almost comical: he asks for a postponement of an obligation he is objectively incapable of fulfilling. But the king does far more than the debtor asks. The man asked for a deferment of enforcement—in modern terms, forbearance or a stay. The king, in effect, grants full forgiveness of the debt. And that is where it gets most interesting.
Having left the king, the forgiven servant finds a man who owes him a hundred denarii. This is a perfectly real, collectible debt. He seizes the man and demands, “Pay what you owe.” The demand in itself is not unlawful. The debt exists. By the logic of the narrative the time for payment has come. The creditor is entitled to demand performance. In other words, Jesus intentionally complicates the case. The first servant does not necessarily violate substantive law simply by seeking collection. His problem is deeper: he exercises his legal right as if what had just happened to him had legally changed nothing.
In the Anglo-American legal tradition we distinguish between strict legal rights and the rights of equity. One can have a formal legal entitlement and still face the conclusion that enforcing that entitlement in the particular circumstances would be inequitable. The servant has an excellent legal position: “He owes me.” The king, however, effectively answers from the realm of equity: “True. But five minutes ago you stood before me in precisely that position.” This is no longer a dispute about the existence of the claim. It is a dispute about the permissible manner of enforcing a claim after having received extraordinary mercy.
The point here is not to cancel the law but to change the party’s status. The king says, “You wicked servant! I forgave you all that debt because you pleaded with me; should you not also have had mercy on your fellow servant, as I had mercy on you?” What is the structure of this accusation? It does not say, “You had no right to demand repayment.” The logic is different: “In light of what was granted to you, it was reasonable to expect corresponding conduct toward others.” A lawyer might formulate the principle thus: “Receipt of exceptional mercy creates a normative expectation that the recipient will not apply to others the standard from which he himself has just been exempted.” But a justified question arises: can a forgiven debt be revoked?
The king has already forgiven the debt. One would think the obligation is gone. Yet after the servant’s behavior the king puts him into custody: “until he should pay all that was due to him.” A lawyer might immediately jump up and protest: “Objection! What debt? You already forgave it!” And that is perhaps the central legal puzzle of the parable.
There are several ways to reconstruct the operative mechanism. First: conditional forgiveness. Mercy was granted subject to an implied condition of corresponding behavior. Second: rescission of a favorable decision because of subsequent abuse. The old debt does not automatically spring back to life; rather, the recipient’s conduct demonstrates that the basis for maintaining the privilege has disappeared. Third—and most consistent with other sayings of Jesus—the king applies to the servant the procedural standard that the servant himself chose for another: “You insist on strict collection? Fine. Then strict enforcement shall be applied to you as well.” This yields almost a principle of symmetry in law enforcement.
Here one can see the analogue of the “clean hands” principle. In equity there is a well-known maxim: “He who seeks equity must do equity,” or more plainly, “One who comes into equity must have clean hands.” You cannot demand equitable, lenient treatment from the court while acting in bad faith with respect to the subject of the dispute. The servant first comes before the king effectively as a petitioning party: “Do not apply the full strictness of the law to me,” and receives much more than he asked. Then he immediately tells another, “Now there is to be no mercy for me; payment must be made on time.” The judge-king replies roughly: “Very well. The court notes the defendant’s sudden fondness for strict enforcement,” and applies it back to him.
From what has been said, the servant’s offense is not merely “he turned out to be a bad person.” Legally one can distinguish several mechanisms. Incompatibility of positions—he demands one standard for himself and the opposite standard for another. Abuse of rights—the lawful claim is enforced without regard to circumstances that fundamentally changed the creditor’s moral-legal position. Bad faith—the favour he received is not integrated into his subsequent conduct. Reciprocity—the standard a subject applies to others returns to him. Finally, exemption from strict liability carries with it acceptance of the very principle of mercy.
The king creates for the debtor a new regime of relations. Before: debt, collection, punishment. After: debt, plea, mercy, discharge. But the servant accepts the result of the new regime and rejects the principle on which it was based. He wants to live simultaneously under two legal systems: grace for me; strict accountability for everyone else. The king declares such a construction unacceptable.
You cannot demand jurisdiction of mercy for yourself while placing another person under the jurisdiction of unconditional recompense. That is why the parable’s conclusion—“so also will my heavenly Father do to you…”—is crucial. Jesus is not merely urging people to feel the warm emotion of forgiveness. He is laying down a rule of relations: received mercy should become the norm by which the recipient begins to judge others’ claims. The sharpest legal thought in the parable is: “Be careful when demanding absolute justice. In doing so you set the standard by which your own case may be judged.”
The most accurate statement of this case in Jesus’ teaching is “Do not judge, lest you be judged” in the Gospel of Matthew. It almost formulates the parable’s legal principle as a general norm. Jesus says, “For with the judgment you pronounce you will be judged, and with the measure you use it will be measured to you.” In the parable the man in effect declares, “As to my debtor, I choose the regime of strict collection.” The king answers, “Very well. That same standard will be applied to your case.” Jesus states this mechanism explicitly: the measure you choose becomes the measure applied to you. Later in the Sermon on the Mount he offers the famous image of the plank and the speck. Legally this can be read not simply as an accusation of hypocrisy. We are facing the problem of disqualifying a judge because of a conflict between the standard he applies and his own situation. A person discovers a small fault in another while having far more serious grounds for complaint against himself. A party that demands a particular standard of responsibility for another must be ready for that same standard to be applied to itself.
What do we read in Paul concerning the essence of this matter? He sometimes radicalizes the finality of justification—most clearly in Romans. Paul echoes Christ that a person is justified not because he has discharged a debt, but by God’s action in Christ: “Being justified by faith, we have peace with God.” And even more strongly: “There is therefore now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus,” “Who will bring any charge against God’s elect? It is God who justifies.” Translated into legal language, this yields something like: the case has been adjudicated, the basis for acquittal has been provided in Christ, and accusation no longer defines the defendant’s status. This does differ noticeably from Jesus’ parable, where the forgiven debt unexpectedly becomes the basis for enforcement again after the debtor’s conduct.
Yet Paul does not actually abolish subsequent judgment. He writes, “We shall all stand before the judgment seat of Christ,” “Each of us shall give account of himself to God.” So legally Paul ends up with a rather complex—and in some respects paradoxical—system: justification by grace does not mean the absence of a later judgment of deeds. Still, Jesus’ principle that “the measure returns to the measurer” is present in Paul too—almost verbatim: “You who judge another, you condemn yourself; for in passing judgment on another you condemn yourself by the very measure you use.”
Leave a comment