Matthew 25:14-30 (Luke 19:11-17) [1](Year A November 13-19) is a parable of money held in trust. In context, it serves as a warning to the community that the return of Christ will mean a taking account of the way in which they have borne their special responsibilities as followers. Those who follow Jesus have received gifts that Jesus expects to be used to their fullest and they will need to give an account of what they have done with their gifts. The parable also takes up the Jewish theme of reward. The reward is heavenly capital, waiting for someone to possess it. This parable also suggests degrees of reward. All this suggests that the Jewish notion of merit was part of the proclamation of Jesus.[2] it was originally a crisis parable, a realization of the gravity of the moment. The catastrophe will come unexpectedly.[3]
Jesus told a parable in which a master is generous in distributing his wealth to his servants. Someone going on a trip entrusts money to his slaves. 14 “For it is as if a man, going on a journey, summoned his slaves and entrusted his property to them; 15 to one he gave five talents, to another two, to another one, to each according to his ability. Then he went away. The journey itself has no particular interest but is necessary to provide an interval during which the servants can prove their worth. There are no instructions or guidelines. Yet, each moved with definite action. 16 The one who had received the five talents went off at once and traded with them, and made five more talents. 17 In the same way, the one who had the two talents made two more talents. 18 But the one who had received the one talent went off and dug a hole in the ground and hid his master’s money. The third may seem stupid today, but then it was a perfectly acceptable form of action, a way to protect what was valuable. One who buries money is no longer liable for its safety. This is the safest path. The intent of the one-talent servant is clearly good; he did not squander the master’s trust; he conserved it and presented it when the master returns. Everything in the parable has the purpose of throwing into strong relief the character of the scrupulous servant who will take no risks. Hearers are invited to consider the conduct of this servant. This servant has money to use, but will not risk its loss by investment, but hoards it. An over-cautious, unenterprising person who is too careful and too fearful to make his mark. He has failed in the trust the master had in giving him the money.
The master returns to settle accounts. 19 After a long time[4] the master of those slaves came and settled accounts with them. 20 Then the one who had received the five talents came forward, bringing five more talents, saying, ‘Master, you handed over to me five talents; see, I have made five more talents.’ 21 His master said to him, ‘Well done, good and trustworthy slave; you have been trustworthy in a few things, I will put you in charge of many things; enter into the joy of your master.’[5] 22 And the one with the two talents also came forward, saying, ‘Master, you handed over to me two talents; see, I have made two more talents.’ 23 His master said to him, ‘Well done, good and trustworthy slave; you have been trustworthy in a few things, I will put you in charge of many things; enter into the joy of your master.’ The story reveals the wealth of the master in calling the great wealth given to the first two slaves "few things." One talent was worth between five and six thousand denarii, or about 15 years of wages for a simple day laborer. These were enormous amounts of responsibility for these slaves. The three slaves handle their trust in diverse ways. The master promotes the slaves who turn a profit with their capital.
24 Then the one who had received the one talent also came forward, saying, in language that suggests a setting in Galilee,[6]‘Master, I knew (ἔγνων) that you were a harsh man, reaping where you did not sow, and gathering where you did not scatter seed. The third servant gave as his first reason for doing what he did focuses upon the character of the lord. The servant begins by saying that he knew the lord was harsh, and he defines this harshness in terms of greed and injustice. He says that his lord reaps the benefits of things that are not his to enjoy. This servant could know some information about the lord that would make this assessment correct, but so far in the parable there has been no evidence to support it. In fact, the lord has just finished praising and rewarding some of his servants. He seems magnanimous up to this point. Moreover, the audience has heard about no shadiness on the part of this master. Instead, the parable depicts the master as giving according to the ability of the servants. He knows what his servants can do and entrusts them with just that much responsibility. Moreover, the master has given out his possessions to the servants. He is not staking a claim upon something that is not his but is simply asking for the productive return of his own property. Therefore, even though the servant claims to know the master, his assessment of the master’s character does not line up with what Jesus told the readers about him earlier in the parable. 25 So I was afraid, and I went and hid your talent in the ground. Here you have what is yours.’ The third servant’s second reason for his actions is that he was afraid. He carefully hoarded the money and restored the precise sum he had received, and by implication he expected to be commended for his caution and strict honesty. Fear distorted the perception of the slave's responsibilities. The freedom the master gave him became a snare waiting to catch him in failure. He chose the option of faithless inactivity. Those willing to risk nothing risk losing everything. His fear would be completely justified if he were right about the harshness of the lord, but even if he were wrong on this account, healthy fear that motivates one to do a respectable job with what the master has entrusted would not be a dreadful thing. What is odd about this servant’s story is that his fear motivated him not to do well but to act impetuously and irrationally. Instead of working extra hard to please the master who he thought was harsh and demanding, he does nothing productive with his talent. Because of this odd reaction, hearers wonder if he was afraid or just trying to produce a delightful story at the time of the reckoning. It is only after his two reasons (or excuses!) that he proceeds to tell the lord about his action. At least he does not try to lie about what he has done. He freely admits hiding the talent in the ground. At the end of his recounting, he returns the talent, acknowledging that it was rightfully his master’s talent.
The third slave, taking the path of prudence and security, is the one the master condemned! How strange. Jesus praises those who take risk and condemns those who are cautious. Yet, the parable is not strange at all, if we understood Jesus better. If God has given us gifts, surely God wants us to use them for the kingdom. If God has given gifts to the body of Christ, God wants us to become faithful witnesses of a gracious God. 26 But his master replied, ‘You wicked and lazy slave! With the last slave, the master reveals that what might have been a responsible course of action is selfishness, interested only in saving his own neck. The master calls the servant evil and lazy, qualities that describe how he has acted in this parable. He is evil to believe something that is not true about the master and lazy in that he did nothing with that with which the master entrusted him. You knew (ᾔδεις), did you, that I reap where I did not sow, and gather where I did not scatter? 27 Then you ought to have invested my money with the bankers, and on my return I would have received what was my own with interest. The master drives the fact home by pointing out that if the servant really thought the master would lay claim to what was not his, he should have at least taken the coin to the bankers to gain interest. This would have taken no more effort than digging a hole for the coin in the ground. 28 So take the talent from him, and give it to the one with the ten talents.
A rich man, feared by his servants as an inconsiderate and rapacious employer, who, before setting out on a long journey, entrusts money to each of the persons to be traded. The two faithful servants are rewarded with increased responsibility. The details of the story are subordinate to the dramatic climax of the reckoning with the cautious servant, whose hopeful complacency receives a rebuff from the master.[7] In the context of the ministry of Jesus, the parable refers to the scribes and Pharisees as the cautious slave, and the disciples as the risk-taking slaves. God had given the Pharisees so much, and yet they failed to use the gifts they had. Two slaves are risky, and their risk paid off. The religious leaders made Judaism barren. It had no other aim than to save the tiny nation, the guardian of great ideals, from sinking into the massive culture of the Greeks and Romans. It was hiding its treasure. The discipline of the Pharisees was the safe path, but risk is what Jesus and his followers were about.[8]
A dominical saying (also in 13:12, Mark 4:25) in the form of a general maxim provides an application of the parable. It makes the point of the parable the treatment of the worthy and unworthy servants, rather than giving an account at the end or of the delay of the end.[9] 29 For to all those who have, more will be given, and they will have an abundance; but from those who have nothing, even what they have will be taken away. The ill-disposed will lose what they have. One who possesses spiritual capacity will enlarge that capacity by experience, while one who has none will decline into a worse condition as times goes on.[10] In this context, however, the saying is not applicable, for the one who hid the money was deprived of it because he did not increase his holdings, not because he had little. The master takes away the money of the slave who hid his capital in the ground and gives it to the slave who produced the greatest profit. In this act, the parable seems to work contrary to Jesus’ usual concern with those who are poor and disadvantaged when the master commands that his servants take the talent of the rebuked servant from him and give it to the servant who has 10 talents. This parable indulges in exaggeration. The ending is surprising and even shocking. Hiding the money was the safe thing to do, while the parable treats it as bad. 25:29 is a saying that may turn apocalyptic expectations on their head. The mixture of generous reward and harsh punishment coupled with the saying of verse 29 about taking from those who have nothing and giving to those who have much reinforces the strangeness of the narrative. The kingdom that Jesus proclaims is a more complex, uncertain and unexpected place than we would like it to be. However, the saying in verse 29 helps clarify the canonical purpose of the story, especially when viewed in other contexts. In fact, the only bit of application of this parable is the inclusion of the aphorism, which also appears in Matthew 13:12, Mark 4:25, Luke 8:18 and 19:26. The proverb seems less fair than the parable. The saying itself seems hard and unfair on its face. The other occurrences of the saying help return our focus to the actions of the servants here in Matthew rather than to their intrinsic worth or character. Everyone could hear, follow, and be faithful— some will, and some will not, either out of disbelief, laziness, fear or other purpose or emotion. In the parable, even though the master entrusted the third servant with little because of his ability, the master takes it away from him because of his misguided and lazy action. Hence, at least in this instance, the parable helps to explain the aphorism. Those who have, those who have not, the giving, and taking that one associates with each group is not random but has its basis in the beliefs and actions of each. The exhortation for Jesus’ disciples and for Matthew’s readers is twofold. Not only should they be diligent with what the master has given, knowing that the time is short, but they should also seek to understand the character of the master they serve. He will punish those who do not serve him rightly — because he is just rather than unjust. They can trust that if they are faithful servants, they, too, God will reward them with an invitation into the rule of God. In the context of eschatological waiting described by Jesus, we find an inextricable link between his teachings and the meaning of faithfulness. Those who listen, pay attention, and then actively seek to further the interests of the Master will receive the reward in the coming kingdom.
30 As for this worthless slave, throw him into the outer darkness and thus excludes the light of God,[11] where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth.’ Here it is heavenly judge who speaks rather than an earthly merchant. Instead of receiving an invitation to the joy of the lord, the master casts him away into outer darkness. What the servant believed about the master has now come true. He punishes harshly those who treat his property carelessly. The master not only rebukes the slave for his lack of use and return on the money. Clearly, the master desires not security, but activity, not conservatism, but initiative. Even so, the rebuke seems unduly harsh with words like wicked, lazy and worthless, and the ultimate punishment seems out of proportion to the offense. The parable seems to picture God seems as an oriental despot enjoying punishing failure and gloating over the death of enemies.
In the context of Christian discipleship, the parable suggests that Christians are servants expected by Jesus to make effective use of the gifts God has given them so that the kingdom may grow on this earth. They must give an account of their stewardship. In this way, the theme is like that of the ten maidens in Matthew 25:1-13, though from a different angle. The question contained in the parable points toward the present action of the community, for the meaning and results of which it will have to account when the lord returns. Before the departure of the Lord, he has given to the community the care and control of his goods. Each distribution represents the Lord in the handling of what is no less genuinely His own property. In all its tasks, the church has the duty of turning this property to profitable use. What God has entrusted to the church are the gospel and the Spirit. The Word that belongs to it seeks new hearers. It must not cease to pass it on to others. The Spirit seeks new dwelling places and new witnesses. This is the whole purpose of the witnessing time, the time of the church. It is not a time when it can be content to guard and keep what it has received. Of course, it cannot fritter away its heritage. The servant who buried his talent made it safe but did not put it good use. His conduct is lazy and wicked. It was a refusal of service and rebellion. It represents the community that refuses its missionary calling. The community will stand in the end only if it sows its faith, hope, and love. The community must recognize the character of this time. It knows what the world cannot know.[12]
Faithful discipleship will accept with gratitude the gifts of life, talent, and passion God has given us, and invest our lives in ways that demonstrate that we follow him. Investing your life is much more serious than investing your money. You may lose money and replace it with wiser investments. You have only one life. Investing your life involves family and neighbors, the poor and those in prison. Such investment is love. Love is always a risk. Love for a community of people who want to follow Jesus is always a risk. Love led Jesus to a cross. What is not acceptable is for us to hide our talent for loving in the ground and refuse to take the risk of loving.
What does it mean to wait faithfully? The parable addresses this question and leaves the listener strangely uncertain about how to wait for the Parousia in the time between the ages. Caution and conservatism, values that people often laud as positive and healthy, in this case result in the dismissal and condemnation of the master’s servant who only seeks to preserve what is his master’s property. If not careful protection of the master’s goods, what is it then that Jesus expects? The return of the master will not necessarily be immediate and predictable. Upon the master’s return, the slaves who build his capital are “good” and “faithful” and the master trusts them with many more things, partaking of joy that is more than earthly joy. In contrast, the servant who buried the lone talent is not only negligent, but also “wicked” and “lazy” (v. 26) and “worthless” (v. 30), and attendants are to throw him into a darkness that is more than earthly pain.
In most interpretations of this parable, the note of judgment overwhelms us; we interpret the parable based on the third servant’s assessment of his master as a “hard man” rather based on the parable’s claim that the master distributed his entire substance among the servants.
Jesus as Matthew portrays him has a tough love to him, warning of the responsibilities and dangers that come with discipleship. This is a parable of faithful and unfaithful servants. The rich master gives his slaves responsibility over a portion of his goods. This is not a legally binding contract, but freely given. It is a chance for unsupervised activity. The chief emphasis was originally on the gift God gives each person, which must be made use of now, because in the coming judgment the individual will be lost who seeks to secure his or her own state instead of using what God has given. Whoever is anxious about their own continuance, rather than extending oneself and taking risk, is in danger of losing the gift of God. The master is an extravagantly gracious master whose grace becomes judgment for those disciples who do not respond in kind to the incredible sacrifice of the master.[13]
Application
Some have noted that even the slow-moving turtle moves forward only by sticking out its neck. Henry Drummond said until people undertake more than they can possibly do, they will never do all they can do. Such is the type of wisdom this parable seeks to give.
The 1991 movie "Defending Your Life" starred Albert Brooks and Meryl Streep. Daniel Miller, the character Albert Brooks plays, dies early in the movie. We see him in judgment city. In this movie, the point of judgment is whether one goes on toward heaven, or a judge decides you must go back to earth. Daniel discovers that he has a defense attorney and that there is a prosecuting attorney. The prosecutor says:
Over the course of the following four days, I will attempt to show that Daniel Miller, while he's a quality human being, is still held back by the fears that plague him lifetime after lifetime. I believe that I can show, without a shadow of a doubt, that he must once again be returned to Earth to work on his problem.
The problem he needs to work on is his fear, something that holds him back from accomplishing what he had the gifts to do with this life. Here is where faith and love come so close together.
To love at all is to be vulnerable. Love anything and your heart will certainly be wrung and possibly broken. If you want to make sure of keeping it intact, you must give your heart to no one, not even to an animal. Wrap it carefully round with hobbies and little luxuries; avoid all entanglements; lock it up safe in the casket or coffin of your selfishness. But in that casket – safe, dark, motionless, airless – it will change. It will not be broken; it will become unbreakable, impenetrable, irredeemable. The alternative to tragedy, or at least to the risk of tragedy, is damnation. The only place outside heaven where you can be perfectly safe from all the dangers and perturbations of love is hell.[14]
We can invest our love in any way we choose. One can make money in many ways. One can also love in many ways. We can love our friends, our neighbors and even our enemies. Mother Teresa invested her love among the dying on the streets of Calcutta. Marie Warner began hospice in Kingston, and then took the risk of getting ordained as an Anglican priest. Some visit jails, and hospitals, and shut-ins at home. Taking time to pray is a costly investment in loving. Such love is risky. A lover is a risk taker. Loving children is risky, marriage is risky, loving people of other nations is risky, and loving people in church is most risky of all. The more we love the more we are likely to get hurt. Jesus took the risk of loving and received the judgment of crucifixion. However, what is not acceptable is for us to hide our talent for loving in the ground and refuse to take the risk of loving.[15]
Going back to Defending Your Life, Daniel Miller has a conversation with his defense attorney that goes like this:
Bob Diamond: Being from Earth, as you are, and using as little of your brain as you do, your life has pretty much been devoted to dealing with fear.
Daniel Miller: It has?
Bob Diamond: Well everybody on Earth deals with fear - that's what little brains do.
Bob Diamond: ...Fear is like a giant fog. It sits on your brain and blocks everything - real feelings, true happiness, real joy. They can't get through that fog. But you lift it, and buddy, you're in for the ride of your life.
Daniel Miller: God... my three percent is swimming.
Bernie Siegel relates the poem given by an 85‑year old woman by the name of Nadine Stair. She now faces death. These are her thoughts:
If I had my life to live over ....
I would take more chances, I would take more
trips, I would scale more mountains,
I would swim more rivers, and I would
Watch more sunsets. I would eat more
ice cream and fewer beans.
I would have more actual troubles
And fewer imaginary ones. You see ...
I was one of those people who lived
... sensibly and sanely,
Hour after hour and day after day ...
...I've been
One of those people who never went anywhere without
A thermometer, a hot water bottle, a gargle, a
Raincoat and a parachute ...
If I had it do all over again,
I'd travel lighter, much lighter
Than I have. I would start barefoot earlier
In the spring, and I'd stay that way
Later in the fall. And I would
Ride more merry‑go‑rounds, and
Catch more gold rings, and greet
More people, and pick more flowers,
And dance more often. If I had it
To do all over again.
But you see,
I don't.
[1]
[2]
[3]
[4]
[5]
[6] Michel, TDNT, VII, 421-2.
[7]
[8]
[9]
[10]
[11]
[12]
[13] Frederick Borsch, Many Things in Parables, 1988.
[14] (C. S. Lewis, The Four Loves [New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, 1960], p. 169.)
[15] —Robert Brow, “Gold to invest,” November 17, 1996, Christ Church, brow.on.ca.
No comments:
Post a Comment