http://magazine.byu.edu/?act=view&a=985

JimF: I see what you mean about the sum being inconceivable as a loan. I was thinking of the symbolism behind that. What has God “loaned” me that is likewise inconceivably priceless? The scriptures? The priesthood? My children? But I don’t want to throw out your interpretation either: like I said, I think it adds meaning to the text.

As I read my initial comment, it sounds argumentative; it wasn’t meant to. I meant it as—and should have explicitly written—a question; i.e. “What might I be missing?”

nhilton, Sorry these were too late to be of help. I’m trying to repent. Thanks for the link to Jack’s article (a version of the piece that came out in the Ensign and to which BrianJ linked).

BrianJ, I think you’re right about the warning in verse 18. As for the implication of fraud: I agree that the reading isn’t strong. I think that the size of the debt is what made me think it might be fraud. It seems inconceivable that the king could have loaned the servant that much money, and it is impossible that he could have earned it. So I opted for fraud. However, I agree that the interpretation is weak.

I’m especially touched by the point that the king in this story was incredibly wealthy and didn’t care about his wealth, both of which are required for him to forgive such a debt. And thanks for your link to the Ensign article.

A few thoughts:

Matthew 18:18: I take this to be a warning against doing what Jesus just told them to do in v. 17. In other words, Jesus is saying, “Here is how to excommunicate someone (v. 17), but make sure that you realize that when you loose/excommunicate someone on earth it has eternal consequences (v. 18).”

Matthew 18:24: I’m not sure I accept the implication that the servant was guilty of fraud. I see the reasoning behind that reading, but I don’t see a strong case made for it in the text. The implication I get from v. 23 is that the books were being balances for all of the servants—like a year-end audit. If the debt was from fraud, then that adds meaning to the story, so I don’t think it’s a trivial point. What, besides the sheer size of the debt, implies fraud?

Along these lines, I read the size of the debt as making two points: 1) that the forgiveness that comes later is truly amazing, and the hardness toward the fellowservant was all the more absurd, and 2) that the king was wealthy enough to a) be able to make that sort of loan/have that kind of money stolen and b) the king could afford to wipe away a debt so large. The second point comes to me after thinking about Robert’s post on judgment on these verses: even though the debt equalled the wealth of the entire world, the king in this story didn’t need/care about the money. It got me, as I taught this lesson, thinking about King Benjamin and how we can never pay God back for anything.

Luke 10: In Feb 2007 there was a very nice article in the Ensign titled, “The Good Samaritan: forgotten symbols.”

We then discussed the key scriptures involved and in the end we tied up the whole conversation of humility, forgiveness, and charity by applying the model of Faith in James, “__________without works is dead.” We as a class analyzed the above concepts in this light, and found the statement true in all instances.

Finally we discussed the inherrent risk involved in all of these and the necessity of risk in going forward in existence.

All in all, I felt like we all agreed on the fundamental principles involved and have a good foundation to go forward.