The Parable of the Talents: Countering a Misreading

June 8, 2013

Rereading the Bible, and the Gospels particularly, has become a bit of a pastime. It is especially trendy to read them through a grid that makes Jesus’ message all about “the poor” and “social justice.” While I don’t deny that there is more than a grain of truth to that—Jesus was indeed concerned about the poor, and warned against worshiping Mammon—these new readings are frequently more problematic than the older interpretations which they intend to replace.

Adam Ross’s treatment of the “parable of the talents” (Matthew 25:14–30/Luke 19:11–27) is a case in point. In his view, the nobleman who goes away, leaving three servants with various amounts of money, is a depiction not of Jesus, but of someone wicked. After all, Jesus, friend of the poor (one is tempted to say Friend of the Poor^TM), would never depict Himself as a nobleman, and certainly not as one who would encourage violation of the law by requiring His servants to practice usury.

This reading, however is fraught with difficulties.

First, it assumes that the parable really is directly about money, whereas very few (if any) of Jesus’ parables are that direct regarding their subject matter. If that assumption is wrong, it falsifies everything, for several reasons, including the subversion of Jesus’ point about “gaining money at interest,” and equally the supposedly unjust character of the “nobleman” in view.

Second, this reading ignores verbal cues which tie this parable to other parables, particularly in Matthew’s Gospel. Five other times in Matthew, the same terminology of weeping and gnashing of teeth is used, and each time it is used to refer to divine judgment against those who reject Jesus or His kingdom, or abuse His kingdom’s servants. It is predicated of the “sons of the kingdom” who reject Jesus in 8:12; of the weeds in the field in 13:42; of the unrighteous “fish” in 13:50; of the man without the wedding garment in 22:13; and of the wicked servant who abuses his fellow servants during the delay of his master in 24:51.

Third, this power to cast the servant into outer darkness, where there is weeping and gnashing of teeth, is not a power that could be aptly attributed to anyone other than God Himself. Nor, for that matter, would be the corresponding blessing, “enter into the joy of your master” (which is probably a reference to Ps 16:11)—even apart from observing the probable intended resonances of the term kurios (Lord, Master).

Fourth, in the preceding chapter in Matthew, it is Jesus who is depicted as a master who departs on a journey and returns to provide judgment (just as the nobleman does here), not someone or some group in Israel that is acting unjustly.

Fifth, this parable is about the nobleman’s own property (Mt 25:14), and in the Gospel of Matthew, it is God or Jesus who is the property holder and master, while it is Israel or its leaders who is/are entrusted with the household, property, and goods. See e.g. 24:45. Moreover, elsewhere “servants” are not the “servants” of the wicked, but of God or Jesus.

Sixth, the “harshness” of the nobleman has a specific context and it in fact fits well with what Ross insists upon in his conclusion: the nobleman judges those who do not do as he says, which of course includes serving one another and caring for the poor. The care of the household is given in trust, not for oneself, but for the Master.

Seventh, the “aristocratic” character of the master is not to the fore. Matthew does not even use the term “nobleman” (he simply mentions a man traveling to a far country; only Luke uses the term), but even if he had, the term is not at all unsuitable for a reference to King Jesus, who compares Himself to a rich householder in the near context of this very Gospel (again, e.g. 24:45).

Eighth, in Luke, Jesus puts forth this parable as a counter to those who supposed that the kingdom of God was going to appear (in fullness?) immediately (Lk 19:11–12). This fits exactly with the parable’s picture of the master departing on a journey, as Jesus shortly does.

Ninth, Jesus does in fact have a habit of citing something that would be offensive and objectionable in terms of Torah, and subverting it to make His own point, just as He does here with the matter of usury. Think for example of His statement that whoever did not eat His flesh and drink His blood would have no life (Jn 6:53ff).

Ironically, the parable does fit in remarkably well with a castigation of Mammon when read as intended, i.e. in context with the other parables. Because how the things entrusted “bear interest” is not by handling them for oneself, but precisely in service to others. The master sets servants over the household in order to give his fellow servants food (24:45), for example.

Paul has a much better reading of the parable than Ross’s reading provides. In a passage about money, the apostle speaks in Galatians 6 of sowing to the Spirit, and we find that the time of harvest is eschatological. And the way of sowing to the Spirit is by partnering with faithful teachers of the Word, doing good to all, and particularly those of the “household” (Gal 6:10—does that sound familiar? cf Mt 24:45; the Greek words are closely related).

Yes, the way of the King mandates serving others, including with our material goods—a fact supported by the more familiar reading of this parable, when rightly understood. Those who invest their assets in the “flesh”—the old kosmos—will from the flesh reap corruption, while those who invest them in the Spirit will from the Spirit reap eternal life.