Matthew 25:14-30 (25th Sunday after Pentecost) – November 19, 2023

Introduction

Traditional interpretations of this text have strong roots and I don’t think they are bad, as long as we are centering a grace-filled theology. However, I think there are a number of flags raised in this parable that should give us pause and lead us to ask some questions of this traditional interpretation.

Narrative Context

Something that I forgot to mention last week, is that while we are in the same day, our scene has shifted slightly. Jesus and the disciples have left the temple and are now walking in Jerusalem. These parables in chapter 25 (and the apocalyptic sayings of 24) are directed at the disciples only and not the crowds and religious leaders. Therefore, these parables specifically are for the church to better understand our part.

Traditional Interpretation

The parable of the talents.  It’s actually one that is commonly used in the church. It’s a parable that is often equated with stewardship sermons. We have been given talents from God and we are supposed to use them for the good of the church. So, to position the characters, God is the master, followers of God are the slaves.

It’s really not a bad interpretation. There is a calling for us as disciples to use our gifts, given from God, for the purpose of God’s will and God’s kingdom. It is important for us to then center our Lutheran (or grace-filled) theology on this text. It is not our works that matter here, but God’s grace that gives us the talents and it is our response to that grace is what glorifies the kingdom of God. We use our gifts not to earn salvation, but in response to the grace and love of God and for the purpose of spreading this Good News throughout God’s kingdom.

That is how a lot of stewardship sermons go. That’s how a lot of pastors have preached this in the past. So, what about this third slave who buries the talent?

The Nuanced Theology

What do we do with this third slave who is punished for burying his talent and being afraid?

Well, as far as I’ve been able to decipher, the only way to focus on this in a way that is still grace-filled, is that we could interpret the third’s slave burying the talent as rejecting God. Additionally in proclaiming, “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.” This ‘explanation’ from the third slave indicates a disconnect from God. The third slave giving this explanation of an unmerciful God must mean that this slave has no idea who God really is and that is because the slave has rejected God’s invitation of discipleship. It is not the lack of work that brings about the judgment, but the rejection of God and the misinterpretation of who God is.

The master is the responding to this explanation in the way that the slave expects God to be. The slave expects the master to be merciless, and so God responds in that way. The slave expects the master to be harsh, and so God responds in that way.

Tying those together

If we preach this more traditional lens (without works righteousness), then we have to interpret the third slave as well. To use our gifts in response to God’s grace is good and right. To not use our gifts and to reject God means that there is a consequence.

Flipping this one too

But to look at this text in only the traditional way disregards some of the tension of this story that can inform us in new ways.

A master gives an enormous amount of money to three slaves. There are many scholars who go into the detail about this talent by itself. One talent would be worth more than 15 years’ worth of wages. Now multiply that by five, or two, or even just the one.

But something that we have to note, is that these are slaves. They are charged to take care of this money but according to Roman law, it would not be theirs. Ulrich Luz writes, “Roman law designated the money given to slaves as peculium… In Roman law the peculium always remained a part of the master’s possessions, even when the slave could do with it largely as he pleases.”[1] This means, that while this money is given to the slaves, it is not theirs and the master can claim it back at any point in time.

So, here’s where the traditional interpretation starts to be uncomfortable. In Matthew’s audience, they would have been aware of the practices used gain money quickly. Luz writes, “Here the hearers probably were not thinking at all of lending money for interest. The best way to make money quickly in antiquity was dealing in commodities or speculating in land…In view of the astonishingly high margin of profit (undoubtedly exaggerated for narrative effect), many of the hearers would have thought of unscrupulous and cutthroat practices.”[2]

In order to make the money that the first two slaves made, they would have had to exploit and engage in predatory business behavior to generate this level of profit. Think of the predatory business practices that are used in the process of gentrification. Purchasing large portions of property at a fraction of their worth. Raising rents on current tenants to force them out. Selling the land/building when it’s at its most valuable (without doing any remodeling) to large companies and corporations who can absorb those costs.

This is the action that is praised by the master. ‘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.’

In contrast to the first two slaves, the third buries the coin. Luz writes, “The third slave acts differently. He treats the sum of money as a fixed deposit entrusted to him. He guards it carefully. In rabbinic sources burying money is explicitly praised a safe way to preserve things, in crass distinction from keeping money in a cloth [see Luke’s version]. The hearers are anxious to know what will happen to this slave whose understanding of his assignment obviously differed from that of his two colleagues. How will the master treat him?”[3]

So again, the Matthean audience’s context matters here. Being at least a partly Jewish community, they would have some level of awareness that this third slave is not doing anything explicitly wrong. In fact, this slave has been the most honorable of the three according to tradition AND in light of Matthews gospel lessons.

Jesus clearly disapproves of exploitation by tax collectors in Matthew 9:9-13 in the calling of Matthew (the tax collector).

In Matthew 19:23-26, “Then Jesus said to his disciples, ‘Truly I tell you, it will be hard for a rich person to enter the kingdom of heaven. Again I tell you, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of needle than for someone who is rich to enter the kingdom of God.’ When the disciples heard this, they were greatly astounded and said, ‘Then who can be saved?’ But Jesus looked at them and said, ‘For mortals it is impossible, but for God all things are possible.’”  

Additionally, if you look at the series of ‘woes’ in Matthew 23 (13-36), Jesus is clearly calling out hypocritical action. Matthew 23:23 is probably one of the most powerful, “Woe to you scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you tithe mint, dill, and cummin, and have neglected the weightier matters of the law: justice and mercy and faith.”

In Luke’s gospel, we get a far more conflicting version that makes us question who the master and Lord is (Luke 19:11-27). Luke’s tradition has told us that it might be alluding to Herodian Archelaus who traveled to Rome to assure his succession to his father Herod’s throne. The whole Lukan version can and should make us suspicious. Matthew is less obvious, however.

And still, everything to this point should raise our hackles a bit. It’s contradictory to what we have heard throughout the entirety of this gospel. So, what if the third slave is the “hero” of this story? The one from whom we can learn a lesson.

The third slave comes to the master and says, “Master, I knew that you were a harsh man, reaping where you did not sow, and gathering where you did not scatter seed.” If we remember back in chapter 13 of Matthew, Jesus tells this incredible parable about a Sower, who scattered seed everywhere…on a path, on rocky ground, on good soil. From that parable, we could begin to see that God could reap everywhere, because God scatters seed everywhere.

And as this parable of the talents continues, the Master lays down a punishment upon this third slave because the third slave did not abide and conform to the master’s rules. It is then that this master turns to his other servants or maybe guards and says to them, take the talent from him and give it to the one with 10 talents.  And he says, “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.”

Again, upon reading this line we have to pause, because just chapters before this Jesus finishes other parables by saying “for the first shall be last and the last shall be first.”

How is it that Jesus would just completely change his mind, and reject those with nothing? Have we just completely misunderstood all of Matthew to this point? No, I think again we are called to turn this over.

Who is this for?

Peter and the disciples hold the keys to the kingdom. And what does power do to us? How easy would it be for them with power to turn and expect more power, wealth, and might from this authority? Will they attempt to exploit new followers? Demanding property and riches. Demanding absolute allegiance.

In the Gospel of Matthew, Jesus is constantly facing rejection. Additionally, Jesus is being questioned and confronted for doing things wrong at every turn. We know that Jesus is doing things in accordance with the law and following the weightier matters of the law. And still, Jesus’ actions make us very uncomfortable. He eats with the wrong people. He dismisses the aesthetic aspects of faith. He rejects notions of wealth and prosperity. He never seeks political power or military might. And when confronted about those things, he seems to have buried it altogether.

When confronted about how he uses his power, the third slave seems to protest the actions expected of him. The third slave is returning the possession, releasing himself from the obligation of the nefarious demands of how to multiply that authority and power.

Jesus does not use his authority and power in ways that we would expect. In fact, in the end, he gives it up altogether. And what happens to him?  He is stripped of everything. He is cast out and ostracized. He is thrown out into the darkness.

Wrap Up

Is God harsh and reaping where God does not sow? Or is God merciful, slow to anger, and abounding in steadfast love?

Preaching Possibilities

As the Assistant to the Bishop for Generosity in the Delaware-Maryland Synod, maybe I shouldn’t be actively negating this text as a stewardship parable.

But I think that this text is actually yet another cautionary tale for our disciples and future leaders of the church.

Absolute Power

You know the phrase. And so does everyone in our pews. Absolute power corrupts absolutely. As soon as the first two slaves have money in their hand, they begin to use it in ways that will gain them more. That was never the instruction of the master, but it’s immediately what they do? Why? Because power consumes us. Wealth and it’s allure consumes us.

We see it additionally in the response of the master too. Again, there was never any explicit instruction that the slaves were required to turn a profit. But after the first two slaves produced a profit, then the master expected the third slave to produce a profit as well.

Why does this matter?

Because wealth and power are two areas that we in America are most uncomfortable talking about. We’re terrified of interrogating how the pursuit of power, influence, and wealth impact all of social landscapes: politics, business, industry, and social circles.

The church is no exception. While so much of Jesus’ message emphasized on serving others, for centuries, Church leaders have participated in exploitative practices that would pad the pockets of the elite circles.

The allure of power and wealth can rob us of our direction and move us in ways that are antithetical to the Gospel. Moving us towards exploitative and even predatory practices that harm our neighbors and our community. But the Gospel, throughout Matthew, has told us that we should devoid ourselves of the pursuit of power and wealth and always attempt to use it for the good of our neighbors and the kingdom of God.

Vocation

While this isn’t a parable on financial stewardship, it could be a parable about our vocation, and rejecting the forces of this world that call us to live antithetically to the Gospel. As Christians, do we have a moral responsibility to avoid and even stand against occupations and positions of power that exploit and harm others? According to this parable, I would say so.

---

[1] Ulrich Luz, Matthew vol. 3, 251.

[2] Luz, 251-252.

[3] Luz, 252.