Introduction
The words of
a parable were read just a few moments ago. But what did you hear?
Did you hear
a morality tale about the wise use of gifts and abilities that God gives to
each person? Did you hear an admonition to not bury what you are given? Did you
hear a children’s story?
The parable
of the talents, as this selection is frequently called, is quite familiar to
many of us. We know (or think we know) what it says, and we certainly have
heard its interpretation repeated to us. But, as you might have already
suspected, I will offer a couple of other possible interpretations of this
parable.
Traditional Interpretation
First,
however, we should hear a summary of what probably is the most common and
traditional interpretation of the parable. It is not a bad interpretation nor
is it wrong. But it may in fact be a more recent innovation.
The basic
idea is that a man, allegorically identified as Jesus (or God) is going away
for a long time. This idea fits in with the surrounding parables. However, it
should be noted that these parables were arranged by the gospel writers with
their own thematic purposes, so each parable quite possibly stood alone, apart
from the others, when originally told.
The man calls
his slaves (allegorically understood to be Jesus’ disciples) and gives
“talents” to each one, each according to his ability (and here is why
the talents are allegorically identified as abilities). They each get different
amounts, and the two with the most go and double what they have. The third
buries the single “talent” he is given. The master eventually returns, praises
the first two for their faithfulness and diligence and invites them to do even
more for him. The third however, it not only reprimanded but appears to be
thrown out and suffers (allegorically understood as being thrown into hell and
eternal punishment for his unfaithfulness).
Thus, the
parable is interpreted as being about the proper behavior and activities of
Christians while we wait for Jesus to return.
An Aside on “Talent”
With that
summary, let us next look at the word that is central to the parable: talent.
This word comes from the ancient Greek, talanton. From Greek it was
adopted into Latin use and eventually makes its way into English.[1]
It is not quite an exact transliteration, but it is similar enough that it
could be understood to be one. In Greek it meant balance, weight, or a sum of
money. These meanings carried over into Old English. By Middle English,
however, the word began to convey such ideas as will, desire, and inclination
of mind. It is around the mid-15th century that the word begins to
be seen referring to a person’s abilities and by the 17th century
this seems to be the most commonly understood meaning. Ironically, this idea
that talent refers to abilities seems to come from the parable of the
talents! So, it seems that modern readers of the parable are inserting a meaning
of the word fabricated from the parable back into the parable.
We don’t
know precisely how much an ancient talent was worth, but it was seen as an
immense sum of money. Some commentaries suggest a single talent was equal to
about 20-years pay for an ordinary person. The slave that received five talents
received something like five to ten million dollars in today’s U.S. currency.
And over the course of his master’s absence, he doubled that amount.
Another Interpretation
We will
return to that vast sum of money in a little bit, but next I want to look at
the third slave’s response to his master’s return. Here is what he said,
Then the one who had received the one talent also came
forward, saying, ‘Master, I knew that you were a harsh man, reaping where you
did not sow and gathering where you did not scatter, so I was afraid, and I
went and hid your talent in the ground. Here you have what is yours.’[2]
Is the third
slave stating what is true about the master, or is it just his perception of
the master? Another possible interpretation of the parable is based on each
slave’s perception of his master.[3],[4]
In this interpretation, still an allegorical one, an individuals’ perception of
God shapes their attitude and behavior toward God. The first two slaves saw the
master as generous and kind, and so when entrusted with a huge sum of money,
they were not afraid to take huge risks to double the amount given. On the
other hand, the third slave saw the master as harsh, and was afraid of him. So,
out of fear, the third slave made certain that the principal would not be lost.
After all, taking a risk and using the money in ventures involves risk to the
principal. The parable becomes a moral tale about being courageous and not
succumbing to fear.
A Third Interpretation
What if,
instead, the third slave’s statement about the master reflected reality? The
parallel section in Luke’s gospel offers intriguing support for the idea that
the master was indeed harsh and cruel. Two sentences are of particular
interest. The first is found near the beginning, the second at the end. After
the master (or nobleman in Luke) goes away, and in Luke, the nobleman
goes away to receive authority to rule over the country. The text reads,
But the citizens of his country hated him and sent a
delegation after him, saying, ‘We do not want this man to rule over us.’[5]
Nothing else
is mentioned in the Lucan parable about these citizens that tried to prevent the
nobleman from receiving authority until the end. At the very end these citizens
suddenly return to the parable as it concludes,
But as for these enemies of mine who did not want me to rule
over them—bring them here and slaughter them in my presence.[6]
Traditionally
(in allegorical fashion), this has been explained as enemies of Jesus who hate
him and try to prevent his return.
Where the Master is Evil
But what if,
in the parable as it was initially told, the master and the nobleman were in
fact seen as evil? How might that change how we interpret and hear it? Wait! I
can hear the protests. This would go against centuries of interpretations,
where the master is Jesus/God and the slaves are Jesus’ followers.
Dr. Levine,
in her book, Short Stories by Jesus, explains how a strong tendency has existed
to domesticate the parables and make them more palatable, easy, and comfortable
to hear. She shows that even the gospel writers did this. They tried to control
the meaning of the parables from the very beginning of Christian history. She
writes that if we walk away from a reading of the parable feeling comfortable,
or at least not too challenged, we have probably misread and misinterpreted it.[7]
Religion has been defined as designed to comfort the
afflicted and to afflict the comfortable. We do well to think of the parables
of Jesus as doing the afflicting. Therefore, if we hear a parable and think, “I
really like that” or, worse, fail to take any challenge, we are not listening
well enough.[8]
Looking for the Surprise in a Parable
Levine
writes that one of the keys to interpreting a parable is to see what is
surprising and unexpected in the story. This is where we return to the vast sum
of money that is found in today’s parable text.
Jesus tells
this parable to an audience, most who would be living day-to-day with what they
have. Few would have any coins stored up, let alone be landowners. Many would
know of losing land and wealth to the wealthy who could get away with
unscrupulousness and unchecked greed. The audience does not have any positive
associations toward the wealthy and their wealth.
When the
audience hears about the master and the ludicrous amount of his wealth that he divides
to his slaves, I hear the audience booing and hissing. And when it is told that
the two slaves doubled the money handed to them, the audience may be yelling
and asking, “On whose backs?!”
When the
third slave refuses to use the funds given to him and states what he knows
about the master, I hear cheering and clapping. But then when he is thrown out,
the audience likely becomes quiet, as their lot is that of the third slave.
Lest you
somehow think I’m making this up and is just one person’s interpretation, this
line of interpreting is found in commentaries and in multiple sermons.
Parable vs. Allegory
Dr. Levine
also writes that a parable should not need allegorical keys for proper
interpretation; rather, that all that is needed for interpretation is found in
the parable itself, it hearers, and what they know and experience.
Unfortunately for us, that means we have to do some context digging to uncover
those things that were understood without being stated explicitly. I’ve tried
to do some of that today.
This third
interpretation given today requires no allegorical keys. The details in the parable
are exaggerated, but it is the lived experience of its audience.
If the third
slave is the supposed “hero” of the parable, what does that mean? Perhaps one
thing the parable is stating is what is obvious through history: the rich get
richer, the poor are always exploited, and that the system is always rigged to
favor those in power staying in power.
Perhaps
another interpretive point is found around the actions of the third slave. He
was in the system, but when given the opportunity to gain wealth, he refused to
participate and instead of remaining quiet, he told the truth about the system
and its participants. A conclusion around this point might be that a whistleblower
is rarely rewarded and often suffers negative consequences of social
connections, relationships, livelihood, and possessions.
Conclusion (of Sorts)
That is the
parable. There is no “lesson to be learned” or “lesson to be applied.” Rather,
it is a reflection on the realities of the world. Its purpose is for its
hearers to think about how each might respond. If for some ridiculous fortune
you are in the position of the master, what would you do? If you are one of the
slaves being pressured to participate in the system, what is your response? If
you reject the system and are thrown out, what is your response? If you see
people who stand up against the systems and powers of this world and suffer
consequences as a result, what is your response?
If we must
hear an interpretation that feels like the parable has a satisfying conclusion,
then by bringing in allegory again, the third slave can be likened to Jesus,
who stood up to the systems of his day and who suffered and was crucified
outside the city (c.f., “the outer darkness”).
But perhaps
we should keep the allegory away. I leave you with one more sentence from Dr.
Levine.
We might be better off thinking less about what they “mean”
and more about what they can “do”: remind, provoke, refine, confront, disturb…[9]
In the name
of God who is Story,
In the name
of God who is Storyteller,
And in the
name of God who provokes, confronts, and disturbs…
Bibliography
Feasting on the Gospels: A Feasting on the Word
Commentary. (2013). Feasting on the Gospels: Matthew, Volume 2.
Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox Press.
Feasting on the Word: preaching the revised common
lectionary. (2011). Feasting on the Word: Year A, Volume 4.
Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox Press.
Hoare, G. M. (2008, November 16). Parable of the
Talents - sermon document - All Saints’ Episcopal Church. Atlanta, GA, USA.
James, T. G. (2022, October 9). Throw Him Into
the Outer Darkness . Retrieved from Washington Street United Methodist
Church:
https://wsumc.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/10/Throw-Him-Into-the-Outer-Darkness.pdf
Levine, A.-J. (2014). Short Stories by Jesus: The
Enigmatic Parables of a Controversial Rabbi. HarperCollins Publishers.
Oxford English Dictionary. (1910, revised 2023). Oxford
English Dictionary - talent. Retrieved from Oxford English Dictionary:
https://www.oed.com/dictionary/talent_n?tl=true
Reid, L. (2020, November 14). Unraveling a
Parable. Retrieved from St. Aidan's in the Beach: https://www.staidansinthebeach.com/blog/unraveling-a-parable
Thomas, D. (2020, November 8). The Good Kind of
Worthless. Retrieved from Journey with Jesus:
https://www.journeywithjesus.net/essays/2814-the-good-kind-of-worthless
[1]
[2]
Matthew 25:24-25 (NRSVue)
[3]
[4]
[5]
Luke 19:14
[6]
Luke 19:27
[7]
[8]
[9]
