Well, I don't know if this interpretation is actually new or not, but I've never heard it before. I'm not claiming anything original, but this interpretation made this parable finally make sense to me. Feel free to disagree and point out where my theology errs.
This afternoon in Chapel we had a speaker talk on the Parable of the Talents, as found in Matthew 25:14-30. For those unfamiliar with the passage, here is a Cliff's Notes version:
Jesus is nearing the end of his journeys on Earth, and is talking to His disciples about the end times and the coming of the Kingdom of Heaven. Immidiately prior to this parable is the parable of the ten virgins, five who were prepared for the coming of the Master, and five who weren't. Immidiately following the parable I'll be speaking about is the parable of the sheep and the goats, where the Shepherd seperates those who fed Him, clothed Him, visited Him, and healed Him, from those that didn't. Both sides say the same thing: 'When, Lord? When did we do these things?' He answers that 'Truly I say to you, as you did it to the least of these my brothers, you did it to me'.
Alright, now that we have the context, let's look at this parable. Here, the Master leaves his servants in charge of various amounts of 'talents' while He is away on a long journey. To one servant he gives 5 talents, to another 2 talents, and to another 1. Once he leaves, the first and second servants invest their talents, and by the time the Master has returned, they have doubled his money. The Master says to them, 'well done, god and faithful servant'.
The third servant, however, says this to the Master: 'Master, I knew you to be a hard man, reaping where you did not sow, and gathering where you gathered no seed. So I was afraid, and I went and hid your talent in the ground. Here you have what is yours.'
The Master replies: 'You wicked and slothful servant! You knew that I reap where I have not sown and gather where I scattered no seed? Then you ought to have invested my money with the bankers, and at my coming I would have received what was my own with interest. So take the talent from him and give it to him who has ten talents. For to everyone who has will more more be given, and he will have an abundance. But from the one who has not, even what he has will be taken away. And cast the worthless servant into the outer darkness. In that place there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth.'
There are two very common interpretations of this passage. First, the talents are interpreted literally, as money or resources. A talent in this context is a unit of weight measurement for silver. The speaker on Thursday said that one talent was worth roughly 20,000 dollars - in my ESV Bible the footnote says one talent was worth 20 years' labour for a bondservant. Essentially what he was giving was an enormous amount of resources. The literal interpretation goes something like this: We have been given wealth by God, and it is our job to invest it wisely and use it for Godly purposes. While this may be one interpretation, it seems to be a little weak to me. For one thing, it does not give any reason why the Master (God) should be described as a hard man.
The second interpretation is that the talents in the parable are, well, talents. Skills, things we're good at, passions - using talented people for God's work. Squandering your talent, or not investing yourself wisely in the Kingdom, will lead to what talents you have getting taken away. This is the track that the speaker Thursday took, and personally I think there are some huge problems with it.
1. Talent in this context would not have meant to the original audience what the word talent means to us now. It would have meant a weight measurement of money, not a skill set. In all honesty, a different word should probably be used in the translation here, because the word talent doesn't mean to us what it meant to them.
2. This interpretation still doesn't explain adequately the Master being a 'hard' man. The speaker I heard interpreted it to mean that the servant thought the man was hard, but that doesn't explain all the stuff about harvesting what he didn't sow, etc.
I propose that there is a third interpretation, and I open it with this:
What is the currency of the Kingdom of Heaven?
What if this parable isn't about talents at all, in the same way that the ten virgins parable isn't actually about virgins, and the farmer sowing the seed parable isn't actually about seeds?
What if the talents are Love?
Now, love does not adequately describe what I'm getting at here, but hopefully it will suffice. There used to be a term called Christian Charity, but that is confusing language in today's culture, where we equate charity with simply giving things away. What I am talking about is Love that comes from the Spirit, Love that pours from God and spills from you to those around you. Love that gives you 'Christ Eyes' for those around you who are hurting or weak or naked.
Now, everyone responds to the love of Christ differently, and everyone expresses that love differently. Notice in v. 15 where it says that the Master 'gave each according to His ability'. Some people have a HUGE capacity for loving others. They seem to go, and go, and go, and never get bogged down in the weariness or discouragement of the world. Others are a little more reserved, quieter, and more careful with how they approach God and others. This does not make them worse (I believe I am one who would be given two talents as opposed to 5), because you can see in v. 21 and 23, both those with two talents and five get exactly the same reward. They were responsible with the Love they were given, and spread it and multiplied it in any way they could.
The third servant was given one talent. Again, this is a HUGE amount of money, taken literally. It is not 'just' one talent. He was given according to his ability. Perhaps this individual was a little more introverted, or a little more wary around people. Maybe he had been burned sharing love in the past, and his capacity for love was less. Again, this did not make him a bad person - the Master trusted him with more than he could produce himself in a lifetime. I see this as the Master saying 'here, I know you've been hurt. I know you aren't comfortable with this. Take what I give you, and use it wisely.' Anyone who has handled money before knows that with more money comes more responsibility and more complications... I think that same principle can be applied here. The Master was showing grace on the third servant, not looking down on him.
And so we come to the second part of the story. The first two invested the Love of God in any way possible, and reaped huge benefits through those risky ventures. Loving is always a risk - especially when loving on Christ's terms.
The third servant, however, saw the Master as a 'hard man', and rather than risking, rather than trying, he buried the love as deep as he could. He kept it contained, locked up, only for him and him alone. 'It will suffice,' he perhaps thought, 'to give back to God what he gave me. That's good enough, isn't it? I don't feel safe risking that love on those who might throw it away. What if I wind up with less? What if I get burned out? What if I screw up?'
But you see, this guy didn't get it, just as those who are identified with the goats in the next parable didn't get it. In the upside-down economy of the Kingdom, the only way to gain is to give it away. Love not shared, not spread, not given, ceases to be love at all. It becomes something else, like religious zeal, or pride or even envy. Love not shared becomes poisoned and worthless. Is it any wonder the Master was displeased? 'You didn't get it... I thought you understood! I gave it to you, so that you could do likewise, but instead you hardened your heart and buried it. This isn't love, because you still don't understand what love is.'
What about the Master being a hard man? Well, I believe Christ is hard. What he asks us to do with what He has given us is, to be blunt, stupid. We are to show the Love of the Kingdom to the broken, to the weak, to the naked, to those the world sees as worthless. It simply doesn't make sense. Also, if you don't understand what is going on, it seems that Christ is reaping where he didn't sow, and gathering what he did not scatter. How can love be found in the eyes of a drug addict? Christ can't possibly be there, can he? How can a Muslim or a Hindu find connections between his or her faith and Christianity, in such a way that he or she is drawn to Christ? Christ didn't plant those seeds, did He? What right does He have in harvesting them anyway? What right do we have calling people away from their own fields and into the fields of Christ? From the viewpoint of the third servant, it simply doesn't make sense.
But even there, Christ is compassionate. in V. 27, I read 'Look, I get it that you don't understand. I know you were afraid. But the least you could have done was give it to someone who could have used it! You could have at least invested into a charity or an organization, at least sponsored a child! It wouldn't have been ideal - I would have preferred you go to be with the poor yourself - but it would have been something.'
How are we showing the love of Christ today? How am I showing the love of Christ today? Am I burying it, and hoarding it for myself, afraid to share it with those I see as unlovable? Or am I taking this love of Christ I have been given, and spreading it as far and wide as I possibly can? Am I sharing with the Least Of These? Am I looking the homeless man in the eye? Am I truly loving, in word, action, and spirit?
When we Love, more love will be given. But if we shut up that love and bury it, even that love we have will be revealed to not be love at all.
Well, there it is. I know, it's long. But I think it's important. Let me know what you think.
No comments:
Post a Comment