Gordon McPhee

                                                Matthew 25: 14-30

IT’S WHO YOU KNOW

Introduction:

Depending on who you’re talking to, it’s claimed that in the synoptic Gospels, Matthew, Mark and Luke, Jesus told 43 distinct parables; thirteen of which begin with the phrase, “the kingdom of God,” or “heaven is like”. The others simply tell the story; “suppose a woman has ten silver coins,” or “No one puts a piece of unshrunk cloth on an old garment.” We correctly interpret these as allegorical lessons to say something about our actions, decisions, and conduct. But when we apply the same formula to the “kingdom of God is like” parables, we find ourselves running into trouble and having to put the parable through theological contortions to avoid implying obviously unChristian actions and attitudes, or worse, ignoring them and so presenting a Jesus and a Gospel to the world in our daily lives that is far from the grace God poured out at the cross.

That’s because Jesus intended and his audience at the time would have understood that these aren’t stories telling us how to live but are allegorically explaining the true environment, the kingdom of God, in which we live. Like explaining to you the effect of gravity, not wether it is better to sit up straight or slouch.

Today, we have one of these parables in our Gospel reading and we’re going to look at the traditional way it is understood and some of the problems this creates if we try to apply it to our lives. And then we’ll speak about a simpler and hopefully more satisfying way of accepting what Jesus is teaching us.

Sermon:

According to its traditional reading this parable encourages disciples to use their resources effectively for the gospel’s sake — and it warns us that we’d better get on with it. I appreciate that The Message uses the term ‘Dollars’, instead of talents. So prevalent is the traditional interpretation that many have applied the term “talents”, from the Greek: talanton, a denomination of money, to talents like singing, entrepreneurship, carpentry, or public speaking. Something that only happens phonetically when it is translate into English. In this model a faithful response to this parable involves the creative, daring, and successful use of our talents for the kingdom’s sake.

We also lose touch with the understanding that Matthew is being exceedingly hyperbolic, over the top, with the amounts of money he is describing. A talanton of gold was equal to six thousand denarii: one denarii being a days wages for a common labourer. So, the servant given five talents was investing the equivalent of minimum wage for 100 years or a little over three million dollars. I think Matthew wanted to ensure his audience didn’t fall into the trap of over allegorizing as many have done by misusing the word talent.

The traditional “what you are to do” interpretation goes like this. Set in the context of investments a rich man delegates the management of his wealth to his servants, much as investors in today’s markets do. He gives five talents to the first servant, two talents to the second, and one talent to the third. Two of the servants earn 100 percent returns by trading with the funds, but the third servant hides the money in the ground and earns nothing. The rich man returns, rewards the two who made money, but severely punishes the servant who did nothing.

The meaning of the parable extends far beyond financial investments. God has given each person a wide variety of gifts, and he expects us to employ those gifts in his service. It is not acceptable merely to put those gifts on a closet shelf and ignore them. Like the three servants, we do not have gifts of the same degree. The return God expects of us is commensurate with the gifts we have been given. The servant who received one talent was not condemned for failing to reach the [two]-talent goal; he was condemned because he did nothing with what he was given.”

A good protestant work ethic of which we, and our employer would approve. But is this Jesus’ message? The Jesus who died on the cross to save the poor servant who hid the talent because he was afraid. The Jesus who told the thief on the other cross that he would be with Him in paradise but who had obviously done nothing of value with the talents God had given him. The Jesus who said in the Sermon on the Mount that the blessed are the poor in spirit, those who mourn, the meek, those who hunger for righteousness, the merciful and pure in heart.

And what of the Jesus who came to fulfill the law, not abolish it; that law that condemns usury, the lending of money for profit.

And if the rich owner is supposedly Jesus assigning responsibilities to Christians and subsequently rewarding and condemning them, what do we make of the harsh description of him, “you have high standards and hate careless ways, that you demand the best and make no allowances for error?” Just the man you want running your business, but not necessarily the one you want judging the world, or you. If the rich man is allegorically Jesus, how do we reconcile his self absorption for personal gain with Jesus spending himself selflessly and calling his disciples to do the same?

And what of the apparent dichotomy as he distributes his fabulous wealth to each slave as it says in verse 15 “according to his ability,” then condemns the one slave even though that slave, by implication, never possessed the ability to do better.

I’m afraid I just find too many problems here. How do I show compassion and understanding, nurturing and caring for my fellow Christians, and my neighbour who may be afraid or struggling when this parable seems to suggest that success-oriented Christians who have all their ducks in a row are going to get it all. If you’re at the bottom of the gifted ladder, why would I want you on my church team?

But let’s look at this parable from a different perspective. One in which we’re not assigning roles, who am I and who is Jesus. But instead, just saying, “what are the mechanisms at work in this environment Jesus is describing?” Despite whatever the world is telling us about how things work, what is Jesus telling us is the truth, the real way this world, God’s kingdom, is functioning. And then we can begin to see how we should try to live in it so we’re going with the flow of God’s real world and not the flow of our popular culture.

Our parable begins, “It’s also like,” which refers to the parable Jesus just finished telling, the 10 Virgins; five foolish who didn’t bring extra oil and five wise who did. The first begins “God’s kingdom is like,” which means our parable is a “kingdom of God is like” parable as well. In both the parable of the Ten Virgins with their oil lamps and this one, the principle of the story, the rich man or bridegroom, went away for an indeterminate amount of time but their return was certain. In both parables there is an expectation that is characterized as reasonable. The five virgins who didn’t bring extra oil for their lamps were characterized as foolish. In other words, the need to bring extra oil was an expected ‘no brainer’. In our parable, the money was allotted according to the abilities of the respective servants. And, in both parables, there were only two outcomes. The virgins either went in with the bridegroom or were left out. In our parable, the servant either was made a partner or was cast out.

An interesting addition that Jesus makes in our parable is that the reward is the same whether the servant had 5 talents or 2 talents to start. I suppose Jesus could have had the different virgins carrying different amounts of extra oil but as long as each had enough, it would have made no difference to the analogy. To our story, however, it does make a difference. We see this reflected in the parable of the workers invited to labour in the field from Matthew 20. Whether they worked all day or only the last hour of the day, they were all rewarded the same. The landowner claims that he is being fair and is allowed to be generous with what is his own.

Matthew has Jesus telling these two parables back-to-back and with their similarities it’s pretty clear he wants us to see that they are describing the same landscape of the kingdom of God.

These parables were told as Jesus was approaching his arrival in Jerusalem. We know from other parables and teachings in this same section that Jesus was preparing his disciples for his departure, although until his resurrection and ascension they did not understand what he meant. What we need to understand here in our day-to-day life is this reality that, physically absent or present, this is still God’s kingdom. We need to know in our hearts and minds that God is in charge. World events that seem, for us, out of control, are unfolding within the purview of God’s plan of salvation for this world, and for us.

How does it change your perspective on the world, your family, your neighbour, to anticipate the absolute certainty of Jesus return. And that at a time that could be RIGHT NOW! Or tomorrow. Or a hundred years from now. Jesus is returning. Would you make certain you had extra oil for your lamp just in case. Would you not delay but go immediately and try to fulfill the responsibility you’ve been given. Would you feel the urgency that you had to make the best of things now, because the master may return at any moment.

In both parables there are only two outcomes and at that some may protest, unfair! However, I’d ask you to consider a lottery in which anyone who goes to the dépanneur and picks up a free ticket is automatically a winner of the grand prize, the same grand prize for everyone. How would you characterize the people who didn’t go and get their ticket; who didn’t believe the one who promoted the lottery or just couldn’t be bothered? Aren’t Jesus’ parables very similar? Whether you’re given five talents, two talents or one talent, all you need to do, as Matthew relates in the parable, is “the least.”.

The last servant wasn’t condemned because he didn’t do well. He wasn’t compared with the others who doubled the investment. He was condemned because he didn’t even try. He did less than the least. Putting the money in the bank was risk free and he didn’t even do that. By implication, if he had done even that tiny action he too would have been commended and accepted.

Listen to what he says about his master, “The servant given one thousand said, ‘Master, I know you have high standards and hate careless ways, that you demand the best and make no allowances for error. I was afraid I might disappoint you.” Does this sound like the master who replied, “Why did you do less than the least … at least I would have gotten a little interest?” The problem I see here is that the servant didn’t know his master in the least. Which sounds very much like the five foolish virgins of whom the bridegroom said, “I don’t know you.”

The five wise virgins knew the bridegroom, they knew he might delay long, and they knew he might return at any moment, so they prepared. And the two servants knew their master well, that he would reward their diligence in at least trying, they weren’t afraid. They also knew he could return at any time, so they went to work right away.

I find this environmental interpretation much more satisfying than a functional one. In this kingdom of God Jesus isn’t expecting me to make the most of everything I’ve been given and if I don’t measure up to some standard of Christian activity, albeit, incrementally adjusted to someones assessment of my gifts and talents, then I somehow need to seek forgiveness for my shortcoming and reform myself in the hopes that God may not cast me into outer darkness. The functional may be an excellent evaluation for someone looking for church workers and to up the quality of parishioners attending but it does nothing for my relationship to Jesus.

In the kingdom Jesus is describing I only need to try. And I don’t even need to use anything of my own. Everything that I need to accomplish the least thing necessary to make my Jesus happy, to make me a partner with Him in His work, is given to me. Remember the parable. The master didn’t ask them to invest anything of their own. He gifted them with what He was sure they were able to manage. All they needed to do was try and not delay.

And although it’s not said in the parable, I’ve always thought that the two good servants may have also been confident about taking risks with their master’s money because they knew that, although investors might take advantage of them, they would deal honourably with their master’s money. They knew their master and they knew the investments would be backed up with his reputation.

So the next time someone wants to tell you how much more you should be doing with the gifts God has given you, you tell them you’re doing the best you can with the resources He’s provided and you know Jesus and that he’s going to come back and they should be careful what they say, because you are sure He’ll be quite satisfied with the return on his investment.

Amen