Parable Draft #1

Many times, the socio-economic aspect of life in the Bible times are ignored because it makes people uncomfortable.[1] By questioning the canon of the Bible, they themselves question their own religious integrity. Because many interpreters are of upper or middle class backgrounds, they feel uncomfortable when faced with the dilemma of what to interpret when Jesus openly antagonizes the rich and powerful (much of what was not antagonization, but the actual truth).[2] But many times these interpreters commit the fallacy of relating God to the tax-collectors, or client-king, or whoever does the economic exploiting at the time.[3]
The socio-economic aspect plays a major role in the Parable of the Talents. In it, a man (presumably wealthy, as he has many servants) goes on a long journey. This also hints at his power because back at those times, nobody traveled a long distance unless it was of huge importance. He probably either went to attain client-kingship, or simply pursue his household’s interests abroad (another note of his mass amount of power).[4] He obviously was wealthy enough to have a hierarchy in his own household, as “each according to his ability” could very well actually mean “each according to his rank”.[5] He assigned his wealth proportionately to his servants, whom he trusted. A talent is much too large an amount of money to leave in the hands of untrustworthy people: obviously, the master was not testing his servants.[6]
While the first two higher ranking servants went to increase their talents, the third servant buried his one talent. Why did he do this? Because in ancient Israel, if money was buried upon receipt, the receiver was not liable if it was stolen.[7] Burying money was an acceptable way of protecting it. The third servant acted extremely cautious, though not necessarily to protect his master’s investment. He buried it because he feared his master’s wrath had it been stolen, because he believed his master to be unfair and severe.[8] The servant acted to protect himself from the master, who he believed would not punish him for acting cautiously.
At the end of the parable, the third servant is humiliated by his master. No doubt his perception of his master’s unfairness was correct. Also the first two servants went and made money, setting the bar for which the third servant would be judged; the master was indeed unfair.[9] When the third servant tells his master that he believes that “you are a hard man, harvesting where you have not sown and gathering where you have not scattered seed”. He basically tells his master that he did not want to work for him anymore, and to shove it. The master, the third servant conveys, takes what is not his. His master, being a wealthy man, no doubt used his power to exploit others for personal gain.[10] The third servant wants none of this, and blatantly tells his master so. His burial of the money tells us that he assumes no responsibility whatsoever for the master’s “blood money”, and that he also fears for his own life. The third servant tried to take the most prudent route available to rebel against his master.

[1] Norman K. Gottwald, Social Class as an Analytic and Hermeneutical Category in Biblical Studies (Journal of Biblical Literature, Vol. 112, Spring 1993), 3-22
[2] Gottwald, Social Class as an Analytic and Hermeneutical Category in Biblical Studies, 4
[3] Ibid, 21
[4] Walter Herzog, Parables as Subversive Speech: Jesus as Pedagogue of the Oppressed (Louisville: Westminster John Knox Press, 1994) 154-168
[5] Walter Herzog, Parables as Subversive Speech: Jesus as Pedagogue of the Oppressed, 158
[6] Ibid, 159
[7] E. Carson Brisson, Matthew 14-30, (Between Text and Sermon, July 2002) 1-4
[8] E. Carson Brisson, Matthew 14-30, 3
[9] Ibid, 3
[10] Walter Herzog, Parables as Subversive Speech: Jesus as Pedagogue of the Oppressed, 163