{"id":230,"date":"2008-03-14T11:51:58","date_gmt":"2008-03-14T18:51:58","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/redeeminggod.com\/blog\/2008\/03\/14\/the-parable-of-the-talents-revisited\/"},"modified":"2014-03-12T12:16:39","modified_gmt":"2014-03-12T20:16:39","slug":"the-parable-of-the-talents-revisited","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/redeeminggod.com\/the-parable-of-the-talents-revisited\/","title":{"rendered":"The Parable of the Talents Revisited"},"content":{"rendered":"
Typically the Parable of the Talents in Matthew 25:14-30 or Luke 19:11-27 is thought to teach that we must use what God has given us in ways that will multiply these gifts for God, and therefore, grant us eternal reward from Him in heaven.<\/p>\n
I have taught it this way for most of my life, and this is the basic message you will get from most pastors and most Bible commentaries as well when explaining the Parable of the Talents.<\/p>\n
In the Parable of the Talents (in Matthew 25:14-30 anyway), the first servant turned his five talents of money into ten, the second turned his in to four, but the third hid his talent in the ground so that he would not lose it. We are instructed to be like the first servant, or at the bare minimum, like the second, but we should avoid at all costs being like the lazy, unprofitable third servant.<\/p>\n
I now believe that this interpretation of the Parable of the Talents is completely opposite of what Jesus meant. Let me explain…<\/p>\n
Over the past twenty years or so, I have read, written, and taught a lot about the cultural and historical backgrounds of various Biblical texts. I have come to see that the cultural lens through which we read Scripture<\/em> is completely foreign to the cultural lens in which Scripture was originally written<\/em> or read.<\/p>\n If we really want to understand the meaning and significance of what was written, we need to understand the cultural background of the people who wrote and originally read it.<\/strong><\/p>\n We live in a materialistically-driven culture, governed by greed and the accumulation of stuff. The Bible was written in an honor culture, where stuff and money didn’t matter. In an honor-shame culture, people want honor. Money is not a end, but a means to an end. Money and wealth is one way to gain more honor.<\/p>\n In an honor-shame culture, someone might be insanely rich, but if they had no honor, they were not well-liked or respected.<\/p>\n Furthermore, honor-shame cultures typically believe that wealth and possessions are in limited supply. They believe in a zero-sum economy. In other words, if one person gained wealth, it was only at the expense of someone else. The only way someone could accumulate wealth is if they took it from someone else. The rich get richer only at the expense of the poor, which, in an honor-shame culture, was an extremely shameful way to live. This is one reason why honor-shame cultures had so many “Patrons.” As the rich accumulated wealth, they saw it as their duty and responsibility to give this wealth back to society in the form of music, arts, schools, hospitals, and other such humanitarian works. This way, the wealthy gained greater honor, but not necessarily greater wealth.<\/p>\n Once we re-read the Parable of the Talents through this cultural lens, the entire passage get turned around.<\/p>\n In our materialistic, economic-driven culture, the heroes are the servants who accumulate more stuff. But in an honor-based culture, the people who accumulate stuff are the villains. Why? Because the only way they were able to get more stuff was by taking it from someone else. The hero of the story if the third servant, who did not become richer, but instead was content with what he was given.<\/p>\n The third servant in the Parable of the Talents was so content, he didn’t even put his one talent in the bank to collect “interest” (read “usury”). The master gets mad at this third servant and tries to shame him by taking away (read “stealing”) his possessions and giving it to the one who is already rich. This again is shameful behavior on the part of the master, but it explains why two servants behaved in such shameful ways — they have a shameful master.<\/p>\n I know this is a challenging way of reading the Parable of the Talents, because we are typically taught that the master represents Jesus, and that when He returns, each of us must give an account to Jesus for how we used the time and money He has blessed us with.<\/p>\n Obviously, in this alternate way of reading the Parable of the Talents, since the master behaves shamefully and teaches his servants to do the same, the master cannot represent Jesus.<\/p>\n So who does the master represent? The master represents the god of this age, the one who teaches models and the morally reprehensible behavior of stealing from the poor to make themselves rich. Jesus is teaching that this is the kind of behavior Christians can expect from the world when we try to live according to His new code of honor ethics.<\/p>\n There are, of course, objections to this view of the Parable of the Talents.<\/p>\n For example, how can I say that the master represents the upside down me-first mentality of this world when Jesus says in Matthew 25:14, “For the Kingdom of heaven is like a man traveling to a far country …” Doesn’t Jesus equate the Kingdom of heaven to the master who travels to a far country?<\/p>\nThe Parable of the Talents Revisited<\/h2>\n