“And the other came, saying, ‘Lord, behold, here is your mina, which I kept laid up in a neckcloth, for I feared you, because you are an austere man. You take up that which you do not lay down, and you reap that which you did not sow.' ”
But one of the servants came who, on receiving the mina, had begrudged doing what the King wanted. However, he did not dare tell the King that, so he pretended that he had been terrified of losing it because of what the King might do. He informed him that he had gone away and had wrapped it in a neckcloth or scarf, putting it somewhere where it would be safe. For he had known that the King was a severe man who did not accept failure easily, and indeed who expected to always receive more than he gave. By blaming the King he thought that he would get away with it. But his very statement gave him away. It revealed his attitude towards the King, and suggested that in fact his argument was just an excuse and that the truth was that he had just not bothered. For had he acted on what he stated that he believed he would have been the one who worked the hardest.
The contrast with Matthew's separate story is interesting. In Matthew a huge sum had been entrusted. Thus the man with only one talent had buried it in order to ensure its safety. He knew that if he lost that he was done for. There was no way that he could replace it. Here the sum was not very large and therefore it was not put in quite so safe a place. He would not have liked to lose it, but the loss would not have been all that difficult to remedy. It was just not worth burying. In the two separate parables Jesus is bringing out the difference between the idea here, that we are all, even the least of us, given our opportunity to serve, and that in Matthew where the thought was on the preciousness and importance of what was entrusted to the servants. As you read both parables everything fits into place in each, but much would have been out of place in the other.
‘The other came.' To suggest that this indicates that originally there were only three servants is totally unnecessary. It in fact confirms the opposite. It indicates the other type of servant to the ones already mentioned, including the seven unmentioned who would be treated in the same way. It indicates the ‘odd one out'. Having given two examples the principles of reward have been made clear. To go through all ten servants would simply have been boring, something that Jesus never was. Now all that was required was to mention ‘the other type of servant', and Jesus knew that the audience were in suspense waiting for ‘the other one', the one who did not fall into line. (He was now the one that all the listeners were waiting to learn about). This was the one who was different and not like any of the others. He was the one who formed the contrast. We are probably expected to see that we know what happened to the other seven, they presumably paralleled the first two and were rewarded according to success. The only one who was not was ‘the other one'. Storywise, once the principle had been established, it was ‘the other one', the one who did not fall into line who was the only other one worthy of mention.
Some, however, have rather argued that the article was simply a carry over from the Aramaic where we would expect the article even if it mean ‘another', or that as Jesus had in mind to deal with only three He automatically said ‘the other one' (the other one I am going to mention). Any of these interpretations is possible.
‘An austere man.' One who was exacting and strict. The kind who wanted to get blood out of a stone. This was the servant's view. It is exactly how many often wrongly see God. And this was why the servant had not fulfilled his duty. He had begrudged doing anything for this hard tyrant. He was as unlike the two who had joyfully fulfilled their responsibilities as it was possible to be.