Proper 28, Year A: Matthew 25:14-30
Episcopal Church of the Holy Cross
November 15, 2020
the Rev. Jonathan Hanneman
To watch a video of the sermon, please visit this page (about 28:25 in).
“For it is as if a man, going on a journey, summoned his slaves and entrusted his property to them.” – Matthew 25:14[1]
Today’s Gospel reading offers us the “Parable of the Talents.” Before we can really get going, there are two issues I need to address. First is the frequent appearance of the words “slave” and “master” throughout the story. Slavery was extremely common in the Roman Empire, but it wasn’t the same thing we think of in the United States. Slavery in the ancient world was often—though not always[2]—more along the lines of contract work or indentured servitude. Rather than constantly trying to scrape together resources, many poorer people would entrust themselves to a richer person for a period of time. In exchange, the “master” (which, linguistically, is a term that could cover everyone from your day labor boss up to the emperor) would provide for their slaves’ well-being: food, clothing, shelter, maybe even some education—everything they needed to perform their work. At the end of the contract, if they weren’t paying off a debt, the slave would receive an agreed-upon reimbursement. Either way, they were then free to look for another way to make a living. If they liked how their former employer treated them, they might sign a new contract. Some people even chose lifetime contracts, essentially an early form of long term care insurance.
The other thing we have to clear up is a perfectly reasonable misperception. Despite what we think about when we read or hear the word “talent,” in this context, has nothing to do with an individual’s unique skills or abilities. Jesus wasn’t referring to natural athleticism, artistic technique, or a remarkable understanding of math. What he was talking about—and what everyone listening would have immediately understood—was a large unit of measurement commonly applied to precious metals.
Although the talent was well defined locally, its weight did change across different regions and time periods. We know of several “talent” standards active in the Roman Empire during Jesus’ day, so we can’t be certain which one he was talking about. No matter what size this talent was, it would have been a significant amount of money. At a minimum, one talent would have been worth something just shy of a year’s labor for an average person. On the high end, it could have paid for 23 years worth of that same work! Combining the weight of the smaller “common talent” of First Century Rome with silver prices from earlier this week, one talent would currently be worth roughly $50,000.[3]
So this wasn’t some cheap investment. The ruler must have really trusted these particular slaves and their financial abilities. And Jesus does explicitly tell us that each one was capable of handling the amount they received. Some commentators question why the ruler would entrust people they “owned” with so much of their money, but it does make more sense if the slaves were more like indentured servants who had trained as in-house financial managers.
Moving on to the heart of the matter, the first thing that really struck me when I was working with this passage was how happy and excited the ruler and the first two slaves are at their reunion. They seem absolutely delighted. The two run up saying something like, “Look what I made!” And the ruler responds like a parent would with a small child. In my understanding of what’s happening, at the end the ruler more or less establishes each of them as a peer—it turns out the money was a gift all along!
We see nothing but good from this ruler up to this point. So when the last slave comes forward, it’s a pretty shocking contrast. Their very first words reproach the ruler as overly strict or cruel. Then the slave charges them with stealing other peoples’ crops followed by passively blaming their own lack of achievement on the perceived “scariness” of this ruler everybody else seems to love.
Given what’s occurred so far in the story, none of those accusations make any sense—especially if you take the word “entrusted” in verse 14 as “offered,” which is an equally valid translation. “Entrusted” does carry some responsibility with it, and I can see how someone might be a little scared about dealing with that much of another person’s money. I certainly would be. But I really do think “offered” fits better with this tale. The ruler is the one who mentions the local bankers and was, therefore, clearly aware of their other investment options. Instead, this trusting person chose to offer different amounts of money to specific slaves who might be able to make good use of it. Nothing says anyone was required to accept it. So between the slave marching up with a litany of accusations and then not even having made an effort with the ruler’s money, it’s pretty easy to understand why someone would get so angry in response.
If they’re angry at all.
The more I worked with this passage, the more I heard the ruler’s voice change from anger to sadness. Nothing here demands to be translated as a tirade. All the sharp words also carry softer interpretations, so the sound really is dependent on how you imagine the ruler was speaking. Getting a little too grammatical, one hint is in verse 29: “from those who have nothing, even what they have will be taken away.” In this instance, “those who have nothing” is a subjective negative, not an objective one, meaning it’s more related to perception than fact.[4] That suggests translating it more along the lines of “the one who doesn’t think they have” or even “whoever doesn’t want it.” Jumping back up to verse 26, the most common standard translations for the opening “wicked” moniker are “overburdened” or “oppressed.” And the later “worthless” term could equally come across as “incompetent,” “unable,” or simply “helpless.” So rather than berating the slave, I think the ruler responds in profound disappointment by saying the person is “overworked yet underproductive” and that they doubt the slave would be able to make a living on their own like they had hoped.
Then the ruler uses exactly what the slave said to build a response: they rebuke the slave, take back their very generous gift, and finally assign them duty more fitting with what they’ve revealed of their abilities or ambition. Instead of joining the other two (former?) slaves in the comfort and warmth of the reunion celebration inside the house, the last one ends up outside doing menial labor, teeth chattering in the cold night, while bemoaning their bad luck.
There are a couple different directions we could go with applying the parable at this point. Part of me wants to look at it through our recent “currency of the Kingdom” idea[5]: what would it mean if these talents are representative of human lives? What might happen if we take ownership or responsibility in the flourishing and well-being of our neighbors rather than ignoring or willfully disregarding them?
But there’s one more detail here that pushes me in a different direction.
If you have a Bible available, look at the very first of our reading (the Lectionary hides this one). We talked about this one a few months ago. Whenever a Bible passage begins with “for,” you need to back up to find out what exactly it’s talking about. In this case, “for” is pointing to the first sentence of chapter 25 at the beginning of last week’s Parable of the Ten Virgins. There we discover Jesus saying, “Then the kingdom of heaven will be like…” So whatever lessons we may want to draw from this parable, we already know where the focus should be.
With Advent only two Sundays away, we find Jesus bringing us right back to his baptism and the beginning of his ministry, where both he and John warned us to “Repent, for the kingdom of heaven has come near,”[6] or, as I like to interpret it, “Think it over—the Reign of the Heavens is in our hands!”[7]
And having dug up all that background information, I’m not going to draw any conclusions for you today. Instead, I’d like to hear what you think. If you need some help getting started, here are some discussion questions to guide your thoughts and conversations (I’ve already scheduled them to post in the main Holy Cross Redmond group feed after the service):
If Reign of the Heavens is already in our hands, what is Jesus trying to show us through this parable?
Did the ruler “throw out” the slave, or did the slave self-exclude by refusing to participate? What might that mean for us today?
Despite their failure with the money, the slave continues to remain in the ruler’s employment and care. How does it affect your understanding of and relationship with God when we interpret the ruler to be kind, generous, and loving instead of cruel or vindictive?
Again, I’d like to hear your thoughts on this. If you’re comfortable doing so, please share your ideas with the rest of us either right here in the comments, after the service during the Zoom Coffee Hour, or even a few hours or days from now on the group post. If all of that public interaction seems too intimidating but you still have something you’d like to say, please feel free to email me directly at curate@holycrossredmond.org.
“For [the Reign of the Heavens] is as if a man, going on a journey, summoned his slaves and entrusted his property to them.”
[1] All Bible quotations are NRSV unless otherwise noted.
[2] Prisoners of war were often permanently enslaved, and there were also plenty of cases where people would sell off either people they had kidnapped or undesirable family members.
[3] The largest talent of that time would be around $1.25 million in today’s money.
[4] https://christswords.com/content/matthew-2529%C2%A0-unto-every-one-hath-shall-be-given
[5] See http://www.slouchingdog.com/sermons/2020/10/18/year-a-october-18-2020-proper-24 and http://www.slouchingdog.com/sermons/2020/11/01/year-a-november-01-2020-all-saints-day for details.
[6] Matthew 3:2
[7] http://www.slouchingdog.com/sermons/2020/1/27/year-a-january-26-2020-epiphany-03