Why I’ll Never Read This Parable the Same Way Again

Here’s the challenge:

Read the following parable as if….

1. The master is not God, but a corrupt businessman
2. The third slave is the hero of the story

Matthew 25:14-30 – The Parable of the Talents

For it is as if a man, going on a journey, summoned his slaves and entrusted his property to them; to one he gave five talents, to another two, to another one, to each according to his ability. Then he went away. The one who had received the five talents went off at once and traded with them, and made five more talents. In the same way, the one who had the two talents made two more talents. But the one who had received the one talent went off and dug a hole in the ground and hid his master’s money. After a long time the master of those slaves came and settled accounts with them. 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.” 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.” 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.” 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.” 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 seed; so I was afraid, and I went and hid your talent in the ground. Here you have what is yours.” But his master replied, “You wicked and lazy slave! You knew, did you, that I reap where I did not sow, and gather where I did not scatter? 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. So take the talent from him, and give it to the one with the ten talents. 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. As for this worthless slave, throw him into the outer darkness, where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth.”

There is good reason to believe that Jesus’s audience would have heard this story in a way that’s similar to how you just read it – the master as a corrupt businessman and the third slave as the hero.

Some scholars believe that Jewish ears of that day would have been anticipating the third character as the hero – that this was a common parabolic form. When we hear a joke that begins something like, “So the first guy walks into a bar….” we don’t know what the punch line will be, but we know when to listen for it.[i] Think back to the parable of the Good Samaritan. Two pass by the beaten man, a priest and a Levite, then the third – a Samaritan who rescues him![ii] Now the parable of the talents: Two bad guys who keep the master’s corrupt business going, and then a third – the worthless slave who refuses!

What about this master? Is he really a bad guy? His employee says to him, “Master, I knew that you were a harsh man, reaping where you did not sow, and gathering where you did not scatter seed; so I was afraid, and I went and hid your talent in the ground. Here you have what is yours.” And who would know better the character of the Master than one of his trusted employees – one that he left in charge of what would be worth about 2.5 million dollars today to manage while he was away[iii]?

To me, reaping where you don’t sow and gathering where you don’t scatter sounds like the very opposite of Isaiah’s vision of what the world looks like when God’s in charge:

They shall build houses and inhabit them;

they shall plant vineyards and eat their fruit.

They shall not build and another inhabit;

they shall not plant and another eat;


for like the days of a tree shall the days of my people be,


and my chosen shall long enjoy the work of their hands.

In God’s kingdom, everyone enjoys the fruit of their own labor. They do not labor only to have that fruit enjoyed by someone else, or build their house only to have someone else take it—but this master in the parable is like that: he takes from others the fruit of their labors, he exploits them. The master in this story isn’t my God, isn't the God of Isreal.

Ched Meyers writes in his book The Biblical Vision of Sabbath Economics about some of the dirty business going on during the time of Jesus’ that would be well known to his audience, “Large landowners made loans to peasant smallholders based on speculation about future crop production. With high interest rates and vulnerability to lean years and famine, farmers often were unable to make their payments, and faced foreclosure. Once in control of the land, the new owner could continue to make a killing by hiring laborers to farm cash crops….In the parable the master’s slaves do this highly profitable dirty work.” The master likely worked a system that was legal and profitable, but not ethical in God's kingdom.

Needless to say, the Jews listening to Jesus’ parable would have heard this loud and clear—this was a very corrupt master. His bottom line was profit, and he was the character in the story guilty of mismanaging resources. The third slave was the only one willing to call him out on it and suffered greatly for it.

If the words from the trusted slave weren’t enough to demonstrate the harsh master’s character, Jesus throws in something extra, which would undoubtedly prick the ears of an early AD Jewish audience, the master mentions interest. Interest is not such a dirty word today, but it would be a big red flag for the Jews of Jesus’ time. John Dominic Crossan writes about the master’s desire to gain, at the very least, interest on his money entrusted to the third slave, “...[the] two versions of the Master’s Money in Matthew and Luke contain the only mention of “interest” in the entire New Testament (Matt. 25:27; Luke 19:23). On the other [hand], there are several mentions of it in the Old Testament—and every single one of them is negative.” (Ex. 22-25, Deut. 23:19, Lev. 25:36-37).”

Ezekiel’s words during the Babylonian Exile in 500 BCE ring in Jewish ears, “[If one] takes advance or accrued interest; shall he then live? He shall not. He has done all the abominable things; he shall surely die; his blood shall be upon himself…”

The Jews knew that charging interest was a very bad thing and only a very bad person would do it.

Herzog has renamed this parable The Vulnerability of the Whistle-Blower[iv] and I think it captures much more accurately the focus of this story. The story does not focus on talents (money), although the implications of its abuse are strong, but a person. Interest was being charged, land was being taken, talents were being increased, profit was being made – business as usual. Life was good in the world of the master’s (one where “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”) until the slave couldn’t take it anymore, his heart was too heavy, he blew the whistle – he was the game changer, he’s the focus here!

I find it no coincidence that this parable directly follows that of the 10 Bridesmaids, in which Jesus tells his audience, ^“Keep awake therefore, for you know neither the day nor the hour.^”  Jesus is calling us, to wake from our sleep![v] To turn off the autopilot! To kill the engines whose heavy droning drowns out God’s deepest convictions in our hearts. “Wake up!” he calls us, “Be ready and awake and alive! Wake up like an employee who could not longer be complicit in a system that left others destitute!” Jesus is calling, “Wake up my people for you know neither the day or the hour!”

---

[i] Ched Meyers, pg 42, The Biblical Vision of Sabbath Economics

[ii] John Dominic Crossan, The Power of Parable

[iii] Ched Meyers, pg 42, The Biblical Vision of Sabbath Economics

[iv] William R. Herzog II, Parables as Subversive Speech

[v] Ryan J. Bell, Parable of the Worthless Slave, 16 Nov 2011

Another good reference: Ernesto Cardinal, The Gospel in Solentiname

We Join in Their Disappointment

Today we remember when Jesus' cold body lay in a tomb. His followers faced confusion, disappointment, shame and threats on their lives. They believed God would deliver them and their people from oppression, that he would finally bring his rule of peace, but that hope was dead. Why had God allowed them to be duped? Was he ever going to make things right?



At church we joined with the disciples. We acknowledged our own disappointments with God, our unfulfilled hopes and expectations, by writing them on small pieces of paper and placing them in this jar.

Ruth as Challenge

I’d like to summarize some information I just recently read about one of my favorite books of the Bible, Ruth, from a book I’m reading called The Power of Parable: How Fiction by Jesus Became Fiction About Jesus by John Dominic Crossan.

The story of Ruth is set in the time of the Judges—before Israel had Kings. But Crossan asks the question of when this story showed up in Israel’s history. Just as we could read a story set during WW2, so Israel was presented with the story of Ruth at a later time in their history.

Crossan believes that it appeared during the “post-Babylonian Persian Restoration (I’ll spare you the dates) of Ezra and Nehemiah.”

In short, Jerusalem and the temple had been destroyed and the Israelites were exiles in Babylon (think “Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego”) until, luckily for them, the Persians overthrew the Babylonians. In this case, the enemy of Israel’s enemy was actually their friend because the Persian regime had a very different philosophy about conquered peoples—they preferred to send them back to their homelands and collect taxes. And, Crossan writes, in the case of Israel, they also wanted a little space between themselves and Egypt.

The two people mandated to see this project of restoring Jews to the homeland and “reinstating ancestral law” were Ezra and Nehemiah. One of the key components (and I’m sure you can understand why) of their program was a form of ethnic cleansing, where all foreign wives and their children had to be sent away. As a justification, they looked to the scriptures, where Deuteronomy 28 clearly stated that “No Ammonite or Moabite” could ever become part of God’s covenantal community.

And here comes the story of Ruth, the Moabite who becomes part of the Jewish family of Naomi and the great grandmother of King David.

And if you think this is a stretch to focus on these elements in Ruth, Crossan points this out (and I did a quick, scanning count): the word Moab or some derivative (like Moabite) is used at least 14 times in the 4 short chapters of Ruth . More than once, the text calls Ruth,  “the Moabite who came back with Naomi from the country of Moab”. I think that would be about like saying, “Syd the American, who came back with David from the country of America.” Do you think the writers were trying to make a point? Ruth's not an Israelite she's a Moabite.

Crossan highlights the other place that we find a “double emphasis” in the story of Ruth. At the end of the story, in chapter four, it’s noted twice that Ruth (remember the Moabite from Moab) was the great grandmother of Isreal’s greatest king, King David. In my mind, I picture Ruth being to David as Mary is to Jesus—you just can’t have one without the other. The Israelites couldn’t overlook this. Their greatest king wouldn’t have been born without the marriage of Ruth, the Moabite, to Boaz, the Israelite.

So what would the story of Ruth sound like to a group of people who are casting out all the strangers and foreign wives from among them? What kind of challenge to the “Deuteronomy-based reforms of Ezra and Nehemiah”  (as Crossan calls them) would it present to hear the words of Ruth to Naomi, at a time when, “Ruth could never have said to Naomi, ‘Your people shall be my people and your God my God’ (1:16)?”

Two (extended) questions I want to think about after reflecting on Crossan’s analysis:

1.     Are we reading the Bible in a way that allows what Crossan calls, “the biblical Word against the biblical Word?” Do we see its “inconsistencies” as problems or as models for how God’s truth can challenge his people (and how the text can challenge itself)?

2.     Who are our Moabites today? Who, in our modern world, does the community of God (collectively or in smaller groups) tell that they cannot be part of God’s  family (God’s covenant, God’s church)? What kind of challenge does this story about Ruth inspire in relation to our answer?

If you think you're up for it, try reading the story again with Crossan's analysis in mind! http://bible.oremus.org/?passage=Ruth