GETTING THE PARABLE WRONG

GETTING IT WRONG FROM CULTURAL BLINDNESS

                There is one parable of Jesus that seems quite easy to understand. It is the parable of the talents in Luke 19. In this parable a nobleman leaves town and entrusts his wealth to three servants, whom he rewards or punishes according to how well they have invested his wealth. Anyone in an investment society understands this. The simple lesson has to do with wealth management and can apply to talents and abilities as well as well as financial assets.  Still it may be difficult to reconcile the vindictive character of the nobleman (representing Jesus) at the end of the story with the Jesus whom we meet elsewhere in the gospels.

Sometimes the most obvious conclusions are the most wrong. Kenneth Bailey ( in Jesus through Middle Eastern Eyes) took the trouble to ask the people nearest to Jesus’ culture in the Middle East about Jesus’ parables, and from their perspective we not only get a completely different take on this parable, but also we can explain the vindictive nature of the nobleman at the end of the story. Reading Bailey will help us critique our own culture and how it may blind us from seeing what scripture does teach. In our time we can practice Biblical interpretation in conversation with the entire church around the world.

In the story a nobleman went abroad to receive a kingdom and return home as king, but the citizens hated him and sent a delegation to the emperor to petition against him. Under the political uncertainty of this situation, the nobleman divides his wealth to his servants with the instructions to invest it. As Bailey explains, in this type of situation a smart investor will hold his wealth close to home until he sees how the political winds are blowing. The servant who buried his talent was really the savvy one. Fearing the nobleman would be banished and never return, he waited to see what the outcome would be. The other two played their hand openly as loyal servants and invested the money, money which might actually become theirs should the nobleman fail to return. To be known as the chief stewards of a failed claimant to the throne would not only be financially precarious, but could lead to charges of treason and might be fatal.

When the nobleman did return as king, he rewarded his servants more for their loyalty than for their investment strategy. These loyal servants were given high office in the new government on the basis of their public, risky declaration of loyalty when they made the investments. It may have been the master’s successful return that prompted the sudden increase in the investments value. As to the one who betted against his masters return, the master graciously took back his own property from the disloyal servant with nothing worse than a denouncement and scolding.

This story parallels the political history of Judea. Around 40 B. C. Herod the Great made a trip to Rome to seek the kingship of Judea from Caesar Augustus, the emperor. A generation later, his son, Archelaus, made the same trip to argue his case against his brother, Antipas, but this trip was unsuccessful. Archelaus was not permitted to return to Jerusalem. Jesus audience would have seen the parallel immediately.

This interpretation is easier to reconcile with Jesus’ command to not lay up treasure on earth than the popular interpretation preached in the west. The story implies that all our talents and resources are not really ours. Any investments we make are done with someone else’s property because the earth is the LORD’s.  If personal gain is our objective, then we classify ourselves with the savvy one-talent servant, but if the king’s benefit is the primary goal of our investment, then we will be rewarded, not with more wealth to appropriate for ourselves, but with great responsibility in the new government of Christ that is coming. A capitalist society has interpreted this parable in terms of financial responsibility, but the original audience would have seen the issue to be one of obedience and personal loyalty. This is the point Jesus makes in this story.

The story ends with the king’s order to execute his enemies, but Jesus does not tell us whether the execution actually took place. As with the Prodigal Son story, Jesus leaves the final conclusion to the listener. Normally in history treason has been punishable by death, and in the story the nobleman is following tradition. However, we still must finish the story for ourselves. How we finish the story will depend upon what we think Jesus might actually do once his enemies stand before him and he hears their defense.

Jesus’ treatment of the disloyal servant gives us a hint as to what he might do. When confronted with his own disloyalty, this servant attempts to flatter the master. In that part of the world at that time, a Bedouin chief who raided caravans was considered to be a great man who brought wealth and honor home to his tribe. This servant awkwardly came up with what was lamely intended to be a compliment. “You are like a great caravan raider who brings home the booty,” says the disloyal servant. And the master responds, “Well, if that is your evaluation of me, you still made a bad mistake. You could have at least invested the money at interest and gotten something to give me.” Implied is the unspoken reality that this servant was betting against the master’s return and the likelihood that he could keep the talent for himself. Still the master did no more than take back what had been his own property in the beginning.  So far as we can tell, this servant continued to be a servant, albeit, one who could not be trusted with any significant responsibility. The city he would have ruled was assigned to the jurisdiction of the most competent and most trusted servant who would manage well the additional responsibility.

In light of the above, the traditional application for this parable appears shallow and trivial. It has also served at times as an excuse for greed and hording. In the west we have found a cultural affinity with the profit & loss balance sheet analysis and interpreted the story that way, but input from another part of the world reveals a better understanding. Today the entire church worldwide can be consulted in the hermeneutical process, and if we do that we may well see the answer to Jesus’ prayer in John 17 as the Spirit continues to transform us into the one body of Christ.