On Not Misreading The Parable Of The Talents

 

According to this source a talent in Jesus's day was a standard
measurement of weight of around 75 pounds. A talent of silver
or gold would have represented more wealth than a typical laborer
would be able to earn in a lifetime.

In the traditional interpretation of the Matthew 25 "Parable of the Talents" Jesus is the benevolent master whose servants are to multiply the kingdom wealth he entrusts to them in his absence. The servants whose efforts result in kingdom profit are commended, while one who simply preserves the "wealth" God has given them is severely punished.

If we clearly identify this wealth as kingdom capital rather than earthly gain, this is an important lesson well taken. No problem. 

But we must remember that Jesus would never approve of the actions of the "master" in this story, the kind of greedy capitalist with whom his hearers would have been all too familiar.

Prosperous landowners in Jesus's day typically amassed wealth by loaning money at high interest to small scale farmers, then acquiring their land when they were unable to repay their debt. This forced already poor farmers to become a source of cheap day labor for the wealthy, or to even become bondservants of their well-to-do masters.

As in Jesus's story, some such slaves might then be elevated to become managers of parts of their master's estate and stewards of their wealth, but they nevertheless remained slaves.

In a previous parable in Matthew 18 Jesus commends one such landowner (a "king") who, having threatened to foreclose on a slave who owed him an impossible sum of 10,000 talents(!), forgave him his debt rather than sell him and his family into slavery. This portrays a completely different kind of master. Then in another story Jesus actually commends a "dishonest steward," one who reduces his master's unjust(?) profits by writing off a portion of what several of his master's debtors owe him. 

So we note the following:

1. Jesus chose a life of poverty, and expects his followers to prefer the same.

2. Jesus consistently condemns any greedy acquisition of wealth and asked at least one rich would-be follower to sell his possessions rather than to continue pursuing more wealth.

3. Jesus would never condone owning slaves(!).

4. Jesus would not favor schemes for making exorbitant profits at others' expense, as in doubling one's investment in a relatively short time.

5. Jesus would actually agree that entrepreneurs should not "reap where they do not sow," or "gather where they have not scattered."

6. Jesus, as a Torah observant Jew, would never have commended anyone for loaning money on interest to needy fellow Jews. 

7. In the description of the Final Judgment which follows, Jesus makes clear that people from all nations will be judged solely on whether they have used their time and their means to offer food, shelter and care for those in need, quite unlike the business plan of the master in the parable.

William R. Herzog II, in his 1994 book, "Parables as Subversive Speech--Jesus as Pedagogue of the Oppressed" suggests Jesus may have intended to portray the third servant, the whistle-blower and truth teller in the story, as the hero in the parable. This Upside Down Kingdom-informed person, while continuing to carry out his regular tasks as a slave, simply refuses to take part in his greedy and harsh master's get-rich-quick scheme. 

Personally, I'm still inclined to support the traditional interpretation of the parable, as long as we clearly see it as being about Kingdom prosperity and abundance rather than about Mammon-inspired profiteering.