“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’ (Matthew 25:14-30 – NRSV).
(NOTE: The text in bold print must be read in the Sunday Liturgy of the Word, the rest may be omitted.)
Introductory notes
General
This rather long parable in Matthew has a resemblance to a much shorter parable in Mark – see Mark 13:34-37. However, Matthew uses substantial material – perhaps from another version of the parable? – that Mark does not have: “It looks as if Matthew does not use Mk. 13:33–37 because he has a more developed parable that he wants to use that will parallel its primary features, notably a master going away from home who sets tasks for his slaves and is expected back later” (J Nolland, The Gospel of Matthew: a commentary on the Greek text, Grand Rapids, MI; Carlisle: W.B. Eerdmans; Paternoster Press, 2005, 1013).
We also find a somewhat similar parable in Luke – see Luke 19:11-27.
“The parable of the talents (Matt 25:14–30) is the third in a series of parables dealing with the proper attitude to and behavior in the face of the coming Son of Man.* It recommends responsible activity in this situation. Its emphasis is on positive action as opposed to fearful and/or lazy inactivity. There are obvious parallels with the parable of the pounds in Luke 19:11–27, though the precise relationship remains a controverted matter” (Daniel J. Harrington, The Gospel of Matthew, Collegeville, MN: Liturgical Press, 2007, 353).
*The other two parables in this series are the parable of the conscientious steward (24:45-51) and the parable of the bridesmaids (25:1-13).
Although, on the face of it, this parable looks like a straight forward reward and punishment story – perhaps more of an allegory than a parable therefore – N T Wright reminds us of the overwhelming thrust of the Gospels that make such an interpretation inappropriate: “(T)he whole of Jesus’ ministry should make us protest against such a view of Christianity, of the gospel, of God himself. Jesus declared that he had come to call, not the righteous, but sinners. He had come, he said, to seek and to save the lost. He warned the scribes and Pharisees that the tax-collectors and prostitutes—who would have failed any examination that the Judaism of their day would have set!—would be going into the kingdom of heaven ahead of them. And he spent what in Matthew is an entire chapter (23) telling the self-appointed leaders of the Jewish people how dangerous it was simply to think of things in terms of all the rules they had to try to keep” (N T Wright, Matthew for Everyone, Part 2: Chapters 16-28, London: SPCK, 2004, 136-137).
The American writer, Flannery O’Connor (1925-1964) has a short story that I think qualifies as a parable to illustrate N T Wright’s point. Flannery O’Connor lived in Georgia and all her characters and stories are grounded in what she experienced in the deep-South of the United States. One theme that particularly fascinated her was that of hypocrisy – the hypocrisy of self-righteous “Christians” in particular. This hypocrisy was then revealed through some kind of crisis.
The main character in Flannery O’Connor’s short story, “Revelation”, is Mrs Turpin. She and her husband Claud have a small hog farm. Mrs Turpin is a simple, bossy, big, deep-South, country woman who claims a degree of righteousness that those around her – in her opinion – clearly lack.
We meet her in the doctor’s surgery where she has taken Claud. Much of the story is a private and very judgmental commentary by Mrs Turpin, on everyone and everything. A particular object of her judgment is a truculent young girl in the surgery, who ends up attacking her, saying as she does so, “Go back to hell where you came from, you old wart hog.” With the kind of insight that is reserved for the very simple and the very disturbed, the girl has seen through Mrs Turpin and insulted her in the worst way possible. She feels utterly devastated.
After she has returned home to the hog farm, the humiliated Mrs Turpin is standing on the rails of the hog pen and she has a vision. The vision emerges from the earthy realism of the old hog feeding her young. It is as if an utterly mundane experience of nature lifts the fog of socialisation from Mrs Turpin’s consciousness and she sees life – herself and Claud included – as she has never seen it before:
“ … like a monumental statue coming to life, she bent her head slowly and gazed, as if through the very heart of mystery, down into the pig parlor at the hogs. They had settled all in one corner around the old sow who was grunting softly. A red glow suffused them. They appeared to pant with a secret life.
“Until the sun slipped finally behind the tree line, Mrs. Turpin remained there with her gaze bent to them as if she were absorbing some abysmal life-giving knowledge. At last she lifted her head. There was only a purple streak in the sky, cutting through a field of crimson and leading, like an extension of the highway, into the descending dusk. She raised her hands from the side of the pen in a gesture hieratic and profound. A visionary light settled in her eyes. She saw the streak as a vast swinging bridge extending upward from the earth through a field of living fire. Upon it a vast horde of souls was rumbling toward heaven. There were whole companies of white-trash, clean for the first time in their lives, and bands of black niggers in white robes, and battalions of freaks and lunatics shouting and clapping and leaping like frogs. And bringing up the end of the procession was a tribe of people whom she recognized at once as those who, like herself and Claud, had always had a little of everything and the God-given wit to use it right. She leaned forward to observe them closer. They were marching behind the others with great dignity, accountable as they had always been for good order and common sense and respectable behavior. They alone were on key. Yet she could see by their shocked and altered faces that even their virtues were being burned away. She lowered her hands and gripped the rail of the hog pen, her eyes small but fixed unblinkingly on what lay ahead. In a moment the vision faded but she remained where she was, immobile.” (“Revelation” in Flannery O’Connor: The Complete Stories, Farrar, Straus and Giroux, 1980, 508-9. In a letter to Cecil Dawkins, June 19 1957, Flannery O’Connor wrote: “It’s not a matter in these stories of Do Unto Others. That can be found in any ethical culture series. It is the fact of the Word made flesh.” (In Sally Fitzgerald, editor, The Habit of Being: The Letters of Flannery O’Connor, Farrar, Straus, Giroux, 1979, 227.)
Specific
For it is as if a man: Matthew does not say explicitly that this is a parable about the kingdom. However, the context demands that we read it that way. This “man” is obviously a person of some wealth. Although the Greek word doulous – literally meaning “slaves” – is used here, they have authority to handle money and make agreements on behalf of the “man” suggesting that they have some kind of trusted place in his organization. “One would normally make investment arrangements for a period of absence in other ways; these slaves are being treated with particular distinction” (J Nolland, op cit, 1014).
he entrusted his property to them: Perhaps the “man” is following best practice here and giving some of his better “slaves” a chance to prove themselves and thus become more significant players in the organization? “Though most slaves lived fairly servile lives, able slaves at times became major players in the educational, economic, and political spheres. As will become clear, the slaves of our story are being groomed for important roles” (Ibid).
five talents: It is impossible to calculate accurately the precise equivalent in today’s currency. However, it is clearly a lot of money. “Five talents is a substantial amount of money: it would have employed a hundred day labourers for about a year. A serious engagement in business would be possible with any of the three amounts” (Ibid). The money is “handed over” rather than “given”. The “slaves” are expected to engage in commerce on behalf of the “man”. The “talents” are distributed “to each according to his ability” – an original touch in Matthew.
Reflection
The name, Jesus, means “God saves” – see Catechism of the Catholic Church, #430. The name thus points to the deeper reality of his presence to each of us. He is the fulfilment of the great promise: “I am with you!” – see Exodus 3:1-15. God chose to enter history that we might have life and have it to the full – see John 10:10. We did not merit it. We did not even ask for it. God acted out of love. God forged a Covenant with Israel and through Israel with all of us. Jesus embodies that Covenant of love. Through him, with him and in him, we are reconciled with God, with ourselves, with each other and with all of creation. This is what “saving” means. It is a work of reconciliation that ultimately can only be accomplished by God – God enfleshed in Jesus.
It cannot be emphasized enough that this is all God’s initiative. It comes to us unmerited. We cannot earn it. Not even by virtues. As the great guides in the Christian life remind us, the way to fulness of life begins with an experience of our deep, ineradicable need for reconciliation. A need that can only be satisfied by God. It is grace!
Too often, this is forgotten. Too often we have been encouraged to behave as if we could merit God’s love. We then begin to see God – and Jesus – not as one who saves but one who judges.
Let me say immediately, there is judgement. There is accountability. There are consequences for the choices we make. But judgement must be discussed after and only in the light of a thoroughgoing and deep appreciation of the primacy of God’s love. First and last, the Christian life is about God’s desire and actions to love us into freedom. It is hard work to let God do that!
In today’s Gospel – the parable of the talents (Matthew 25:14-30) – we have a text that almost begs for a merit-based approach to discipleship. The very thing I have just been lamenting! The way we have appropriated the word “talent” in the English language suggests this interpretation has been commonly made. But do we have to interpret the parable in that way? Maybe the parable could be name as trust versus mistrust? Two of the servants have enough trust to risk failure. The third is completely lacking in trust – “I knew that you were a harsh man”. The master’s response – “You knew, did you” – suggests that the master sees through to the lack of trust. Lack of trust engenders closure, rather than openness towards people, events and things.
Do we trust Jesus enough to believe that we do not have to earn his love? It is precisely in our vulnerability and need for reconciliation that Jesus meets us. We come to know Jesus, the great love of God, through the experience of our need for reconciliation. How well we respond to that experience, will be greatly influenced by whether we see Jesus as judge or one who saves.