Parable Draft #1

One of the most important things to point out about the Parable of the Talents is that it is not an allegory, as is frustratingly common amongst interpreters. The master is not God, the servants are not us, and the talents are money, not one’s special abilities. That being said, the Parable of the Talents is more about exposing
a corrupt system and suggesting a way to successfully rebel.

First century Palestinian society was run exclusively by rich businessmen and politicians. Naturally these elites were greedy and looking to progress their wealth and so they exploited the poor by, for example, making loans that couldn’t be paid off and then seizing land, as in the Parable of the Tenants. Because a small group of elites cannot possibly be content with whatever wealth they make on their own, they need help and so a bureaucracy was also in place serving the elite. Both the elite and his bureaucracy of servants were looking to make money, and so again the poor would fall victim to the scheming of both the servant and the elite. This brings us to the parable.

A rich man is going on a journey, likely having to do with business. In order to keep a profit going at home he leaves a lot of money to his top circle of servants. Though he doesn’t say it, it is expected of them to invest and return at least 100% of the profit. The 1st two servants go off and immediately go and increase the talents because the sooner they meet the master’s requirements, the sooner they can start to make a profit for themselves. By having his servants do the dirty work, the rich man is avoiding whatever ridicule might be thrown his way . In this way he is not directly committing any wrong. The point that Jesus is trying to make here is that the entire system of making a profit is centered around using the poor (reemphasizing the poor being the cornerstone of society, as mentioned in ________).

The third servant, instead of investing and therefore progressing the corruptness of the system, buries the one talent that he is given. This shows that he is not being selfish: he is not taking the talents for himself, which, since he is rebelling against the system he might as well have done. Then again he doesn’t give it to the poor. He saves the talent for his master showing that he is honest and sober and buries it to keep it safe. He doesn’t invest it, and therefore doesn’t contribute to the unjust system of exploitation. He does this because he is tired of giving up his morals in order to progress. When the master returns, he is pleased by the first to servants and customarily gives them more responsibility. When he gets to the 3rd servant, the third servant tells him basically that he is an ass, and has used his power unjustly in order to benefit himself. As an example he uses the making of loans to poor farmers. These loans they couldn’t have paid, and so the master would take their land (given to them by God) and would use them for his own economic purposes . BECAUSE LAND WAS A LARGE FACTOR IN DETERMINING CLASS, IT ALSO ELIMINATED WHATEVER SLIGHT ECONOMIC COMPETITION THEY POSED FOR THE RICH. Therefore he grows and harvests food on land that he owns, but land that is not rightly his, as the 3rd servant claims. “You are a corrupt man, stomping on others. This money is yours and you deserve no more than what is yours”. The master retaliates by calling the servant wicked and lazy, therefore deteriorating his image and the merit of his accusation. The talent is taken and he is cast out from the household of the elite.

Because the master has maligned him, the servant has no chance at being rehired by anyone else and so consequently is forced to become poor. But even as a poor man he would be rejected because he was once a man who served the hated elite and whose job was to hurt the very people he now must live with. He acted alone and so now must continue alone.
Being that Jesus is addressing the common people, the reactions to this parable would be mixed. They would support him in rebelling against the unjust system and in spitting in the face of the master. But they would also probably not sympathize with him when he is outcasted.

So what is this parable about? It definitely calls to attention that that the system is unjust. But if Jesus wanted to incite rebellion the parable would have been more reflective of that. Also, a lot of his other parables (for example the Parable of the Tenants) and teachings would be poured down the drain. Instead, the parable suggests that the poor look upwards for support. In the 3rd servant, Jesus’ audience can see that not all of the elite’s servants are corrupt and that some might want to change the system. As it stood then, the elites status at the top of the hierarchal pyramid rested on the servants, who rested on the poor. If the poor, instead of acting alone as the servant did, were to rally the support of those in the servant class who felt the same as the 3rd servant, then the elites might fall from their perch without the support of the middle section. This would all be without a violent uprising (hopefully). This plan of attack still applies today. If the powerless are being wronged, they find someone who has power, however small, and through them their voices are heard, other people of power are made aware of the situation, and a movement takes place until the problem is dealt with. In the same way Jesus is suggesting to his people away to better their lives.

Walter Herzog, Unmasking the World of Oppression: The Vulnerability of the Whistle-Blower (Louisville: Westminster John Knox Press, 1994), 161-162.
Some Journal
I’m sorry Mr. Sutphin but I forgot my Herzog article and the Journal citation in my locker. I know the footnotes are a big deal to you so please don’t screw me over to hard. I hope Mexico was nice.