parable

It’s easy to read the “parable of the talents” in Matthew 25:14-30 and assume that the 3^rd servant fell out of grace with his Master because the servant was lazy and did not “do” what the Master expected of him—especially if your foundation of understanding Scripture is based upon a works/performance-based acceptance.  It also paints a picture of the Master as being a dishonest, insensitive and opportunistic person who is “only in it for the money” and who is unforgiving and lacking in compassion—one mistake and you’re out!  Unfortunately, I’ve heard this parable expounded upon, from various teachers, in a manner that seems to go along with that kind of acceptance, and justifies the Master’s behavior on the basis of the “servant’s disobedience”.  However, this understanding of the parable does not address the question that prompted the telling of the parable in the first place.

In Matthew 24:3 the disciples ask Jesus, “Tell us . . . when will this happen, and what will be the sign of your coming and of the end of the age?”  The parable of the talents is part of Jesus’ response to this question.  If the parable’s purpose is to tell only of lazy servants who get thrown out by dishonest Masters, then how does this answer the disciples request for a sign of Jesus’ return and the end of the age?  The disciples will know that the end of the age is coming when all lazy servants get what they supposedly have coming to them?  Perhaps there is another understanding of the parable to examine.

As Jesus tells the parable, he does’nt tell his listeners of any instructions that the Master gave to the servants regarding their expected handling of the talents.  This is important information to have if the listener is to judge the actions of the servants, and the Master’s responses to each, correctly and justly.  Without the ability to make these just judgments, we can only look at the actions and responses themselves for our clues.

The 3^rd servant proclaims the Master to be “a hard man, harvesting where you have not sown and gathering where you have not scattered seed.”  He justifies his behavior regarding the talent he received with “So I was afraid . . . “.  The 3^rd servant appears to know the Master well, or at least he believes that he does.  And what is the Master’s response to the servant’s proclamation?  First he calls him “wicked”, and then “lazy”.  Then he challenges the servant’s alleged knowledge and understanding of the Master’s character and nature.  The Master’s words are angry and the tone communicates personal injury, insult and offense.  The Master then berates the servant for not behaving in a manner that would suggest the servant really believed his “assumptions” regarding the Master—if he had, he would have at least put the talent in the bank where it could have collected interest in the interim.  In the end, the Master takes the one talent away from the 3^rd servant and gives it to the 1^st before separating the 3^rd servant from the Master’s household.

It’s my belief that the Master was not angry with the 3^rd servant because the servant did not “do” anything with the talent that was entrusted to him.  I believe the Master was angry with the 3^rd servant because the servant unjustly judged the Master, arrogantly believing himself to know the Master quite well (this would be considered “wicked” behavior toward anyone).  The servant then added insult to injury by acting in accordance with his unjust assumptions—justifying his own “laziness” on the basis of “reasonable fear” caused by the Master’s (alleged) hard-heartedness.  Faced with these kinds of accusations, who could possibly blame the Master for being pissed off?  The other two servants did not express similar beliefs regarding the Master’s character and nature, and we can only assume that the 3^rd servant received the same treatment from the Master that they did.  For some reason, the 3^rd servant is biased and prejudiced against the Master, believing what the servant wants/chooses to believe regardless of how it matches up with truth. That kind of biased attitude prevents honest, open communication and destroys relationships.  With a servant who is so biased and prejudiced against you, what else can the Master do but release him from the Master’s household. It is entirely possible that the Master is deeply wounded by the servant’s attitudes and behavior, and is brokenhearted by the destroyed relationships that have resulted from them.  Not only has the relationship between Master and servant been destroyed, but also that which existed between servant and servant.

And how does this understanding of the parable address the disciples’ question of Jesus?  Perhaps Jesus was trying to turn the disciples’ attention away from “signs” toward having the kind of relationship with God that would enable them to see and hear God’s future communications regarding the coming of the end of the age.  Jesus was aware of how their “assumptions” regarding the Messiah did not match up with the truth.  He knew that their assumptions hampered their ability to understand his teachings and believe that what was to come was truly from God.  Perhaps Jesus wanted the disciples to catch a glimpse of who and what God really is so they could have an open-minded approach to their seeking of God—so they could have, maintain and enjoy a good relationship with God and with each other.

As I meditate upon this parable, I sense that the Holy Spirit is inviting me to examine my own ideas, assumptions and prejudices regarding the character, nature and actions of God.  Though I have studied the Scriptures and sought to follow God for over 40 years, I do not know God as well as I would like to believe that I do.  Indeed, no human being knows God as well as they would like to believe.  God is beyond all.  But there is always hope for those who seek God still.  God is not unapproachable to those who possess a childlike open heart and mind—openness to both God and to humanity alike.