Luke 19:11-27, or, the parable of the talents, may be one of the most well known passages of scripture (this parable also appears in Matthew). Being so well known, most Christians are familiar with traditional teaching on this passage. God distributes talents, we are to use those talents to build his kingdom… Old news nothing new to learn here right? WRONG! The wrongful interpretation of this text might be the strongest and most widespread misunderstanding of any text in scripture today. To begin this conversation let us examine exactly what is wrong with interpretation before moving on to try and come to a better one.
The biggest indicator that our interpretation of this text is wrong is probably all the problems that arise from seeing the absent ruler as allegorical to God. Here we will look at problems within the text that arise from viewing the ruler as God and problems with this interpretation in the historical context.
The biggest indicator that our interpretation of this text is wrong is probably all the problems that arise from seeing the absent ruler as allegorical to God. Here we will look at problems within the text that arise from viewing the ruler as God and problems with this interpretation in the historical context.
Problems Within the Text
To examine problems within the text I will follow a simple formula; I will past the problematic section in here for you to read and I will comment below. (all passages taken from the NRSV; bible.oremus)
12So he said, ‘A nobleman went to a distant country to get royal power for himself and then return.
Does God need to journey somewhere in order to get “royal power” for himself?
22He said to him, “I will judge you by your own words, you wicked slave! You knew, did you, that I was a harsh man, taking what I did not deposit and reaping what I did not sow? 23Why then did you not put my money into the bank? Then when I returned, I could have collected it with interest.”
Would God describe himself in this way? Would God break his own commands and charge interest?
24He said to the bystanders, “Take the pound from him and give it to the one who has ten pounds.” 25(And they said to him, “Lord, he has ten pounds!”) 26“I tell you, to all those who have, more will be given; but from those who have nothing, even what they have will be taken away. 27But as for these enemies of mine who did not want me to be king over them—bring them here and slaughter them in my presence.”
Would God say this? Do these words from God align with what God says in the rest of scripture?
God’s authority is not derived from external sources, Deut. 23:19 implies that he doesn’t look fondly on the charging of interest and verses 23-27 are thoroughly problematic in light of a graceful and forgiving God.
God’s authority is not derived from external sources, Deut. 23:19 implies that he doesn’t look fondly on the charging of interest and verses 23-27 are thoroughly problematic in light of a graceful and forgiving God.
Problems With Historical Context
Interpreting scripture with knowledge of the historical context is very important. Research on historical context has been going on for ages and is continuing to give us insight into the past, but, one small piece of knowledge is needed to shed new light on this scripture:
In the early years of Jesus life, Herod the Great (remember the guy who ordered the slaughter of Israel’s babies) died and the territory ruled on behalf of the Romans was split amongst four of his sons who became tetrarchs. In order to gain this leadership each tetrarch had to travel to Rome in order to be recognized by the hierarchy there. The Jews in Israel didn't get any input on who would become ruler and much of society resented Roman rule, so, it is obvious that the original audience of this parable would not likely think highly of the nobleman distributing money to be used in his absence. It is clear that the associations between the nobleman in this text and Herod the Great’s unwanted successors would have been alive in the mind of Jews who heard this parable and this greatly complicates the understanding of this nobleman/new ruler as God.
Other Problems
Other problems are evident with this interpretation of scripture due to the value of a talent (pound in Luke, mina in Matthew), the rewards for the faithful and the cloth which the pound is wrapped in when buried.
In Luke the value of the monetary unit is estimated to be approximately three months wages according to the NIV; this is approximately $6000 in Ontario on minimum wage. This isn’t the only place the parable happens in scripture though, in the Matthew version of this parable the NIV refers to bags of gold valued at 20 years of wages. In Ontario now, on minimum wage, this implies approximately half a million dollars. Based on these numbers, in the Luke text the ruler left behind about $96 000.00 in today’s Ontario, Canada dollars and in the Matthew text he left behind about 22.5 million dollars. These are clearly quite excessive sums. Sums that many today believe imply exploitation.
In Luke the value of the monetary unit is estimated to be approximately three months wages according to the NIV; this is approximately $6000 in Ontario on minimum wage. This isn’t the only place the parable happens in scripture though, in the Matthew version of this parable the NIV refers to bags of gold valued at 20 years of wages. In Ontario now, on minimum wage, this implies approximately half a million dollars. Based on these numbers, in the Luke text the ruler left behind about $96 000.00 in today’s Ontario, Canada dollars and in the Matthew text he left behind about 22.5 million dollars. These are clearly quite excessive sums. Sums that many today believe imply exploitation.
If the amount of money left behind for investing doesn’t seem to imply oppression and exploitation to you consider that the “faithful slaves” were we rewarded not with more money but with control over ENTIRE CITIES: “Well done, good slave! Because you have been trustworthy in a very small thing, take charge of ten cities.” (Luke 19:17)
One last problem with the current understanding of the text is the implications of the cloth. The cloth used to wrap the parable in, according to professors in seminary, was a cloth considered to be ceremonially unclean by the Jews according to scripture. This cloth may have been worn by a leper, a corpse or it may have been a feminine hygiene cloth. By using such a cloth the slave is identifying this currency as dirty money.
Towards a Better Interpretation
Given all of this what are we supposed to make of this text?To me the implications are obvious; don’t participate in empire economics, but, looking back at the previous section of Luke 19 might help any one else who is skeptical.
The parable of the talents is the final part of its literary section within the book of Luke. This section is a compilation of Jesus powerful teaching—mostly through parables—with small stories of his works (miracles) sprinkled into the mix. Throughout this section of the Luke, a story about Jesus life is often either preceded or followed by a parable that reflects on the story itself. In these cases it is often useful to examine both the story and the connected parable in order to gain a greater understanding of both. The parable of the talents in Luke is preceded by the story of Zacchaeus the tax collector (Luke 19:1-10). Please read it now to refresh your memory. In this story, Zacchaeus comes to understand something about the kingdom of God and realizes that he has been participating in the anti-jubilee economics of empire. His declaration of his own voluntary reprisals to those he had wronged or cheated are an acknowledgement of his own wrongs and a refusal to continue in the economics of empire. Jesus knew Zacchaeus had experienced an aha moment and was grasping a truth that continued to evade the crowd who grumbled that Jesus was to eat with a “sinner.” The parable of the talents is told to the crowd and it seems like Jesus is saying ‘yes Zacchaeus was and is a sinner, but now he understands something you all don’t.’
The parable of the talents is the final part of its literary section within the book of Luke. This section is a compilation of Jesus powerful teaching—mostly through parables—with small stories of his works (miracles) sprinkled into the mix. Throughout this section of the Luke, a story about Jesus life is often either preceded or followed by a parable that reflects on the story itself. In these cases it is often useful to examine both the story and the connected parable in order to gain a greater understanding of both. The parable of the talents in Luke is preceded by the story of Zacchaeus the tax collector (Luke 19:1-10). Please read it now to refresh your memory. In this story, Zacchaeus comes to understand something about the kingdom of God and realizes that he has been participating in the anti-jubilee economics of empire. His declaration of his own voluntary reprisals to those he had wronged or cheated are an acknowledgement of his own wrongs and a refusal to continue in the economics of empire. Jesus knew Zacchaeus had experienced an aha moment and was grasping a truth that continued to evade the crowd who grumbled that Jesus was to eat with a “sinner.” The parable of the talents is told to the crowd and it seems like Jesus is saying ‘yes Zacchaeus was and is a sinner, but now he understands something you all don’t.’
*** Most of the information I've gotten for this article was from conversations with profs and other students at Wycliffe College; specifically Sylvia Keesmaat and her class "Creation, Land and Food." I make no claims to originality in this interpretation, but, I thought this was an important revelation to share...***
