The Other Aspect of the Matter
And yet that is only one side of the story. For on the other hand the same Jesus calls his hearers to absolute decisiveness and a marshaling of all their strength in light of the reign of God. In the Coptic Gospel of Thomas, mentioned above, we find a parable that points in that very direction. It portrays a resistance fighter who plans a political murder and prepares himself at home to the last detail. Again and again he draws his sword and thrusts it into the mud wall of his house. When he is sure that he is quick enough and strong enough, he goes out to impale the man who is to be eliminated.
That parable resembles in many respects the similitude about the deceitful manager (Luke 16:1-7). The story itself is just as immoral, the event is described with the same soberness and precision, and the real message points in the same direction. Therefore, we may regard the parable of the terrorist as an authentic Jesus parable. It reads: “The Father’s reign is like a person who wanted to kill someone powerful. While still at home he drew his sword and thrust it into the wall to find out whether his hand would go in. Then he killed the powerful one” (GThom 98).
Here again we should note the catechetical brevity. Obviously a good storyteller would develop the parable in more detail. But a good storyteller like Jesus would place the emphasis in his depiction of events on the preparatory self-reassurance or training of the terrorist because that, and not the carrying out of the murder, is the crucial point. The murder can be taken care of with a short statement, because what the storyteller means to say is something different: the reign of God demands a person’s whole commitment. One may not go to sleep but must engage passionately, do everything one can in order to obtain a share in the reign of God. Only “the violent bear it away” (Matt 11:12).
The Parable of the Talents
Thus the reign of God requires people who go for broke. That is exactly the point of the parable of the talents or, as it is often called, the parable of the “money given in trust”:
[With the heavenly reign] it is as if a man, going on a journey, summoned his slaves and entrusted his property to them; to one he gave five talents, to another two, to another one, to each according to his ability. Then he went away.
The one who had received the five talents went off at once and traded with them, and made five more talents. In the same way, the one who had the two talents made two more talents. But the one who had received the one talent went off and dug a hole in the ground and hid his master’s money.
After a long time the master of those slaves came and settled accounts with them. Then the one who had received the five talents came forward, bringing five more talents, saying, “Master, you handed over to me five talents; see, I have made five more talents.” His master said to him, “Well done, good and trustworthy slave; you have been trustworthy in a few things, I will put you in charge of many things; enter into the joy of your master.”
And the one with the two talents also came forward, saying, “Master, you handed over to me two talents; see, I have made two more talents.” His master said to him, “Well done, good and trustworthy slave; you have been trustworthy in a few things, I will put you in charge of many things; enter into the joy of your master.”
Then the one who had received the one talent also came forward, saying, “Master, I knew that you were a harsh man, reaping where you did not sow, and gathering where you did not scatter seed; so I was afraid, and I went and hid your talent in the ground. Here you have what is yours.”
But his master replied, “You wicked and lazy slave! You knew, did you, that I reap where I did not sow, and gather where I did not scatter? Then you ought to have invested my money with the bankers, and on my return I would have received what was my own with interest.
“So take the talent from him, and give it to the one with the ten talents. For to all those who have, more will be given, and they will have an abundance; but from those who have nothing, even what they have will be taken away. As for this worthless slave, throw him into the outer darkness, where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth.” (Matt 25:14-30)
At first glance it seems that everything about this parable is clear. Apparently it means to say that God has given each person different abilities and expects that each will apply the abilities given to her or him. At any rate, that is how the parable is commonly interpreted. God requires much of those to whom God has given much; from those to whom less has been given, less is accordingly required.
But was that all Jesus wanted to say? Did he only mean that “you should apply the abilities God has given you”? Jesus was executed for what he said and did. Let me repeat: nobody is executed for teaching nothing more than bourgeois morality.
But there are other problems with the parable. In Matthew’s gospel it is included in a larger composition of parables about the return of the Son of Man, that is, the Christ of the Parousia. It is quite clear that Matthew (and the early church with him) understood the parable in that light. The master who goes away is now the exalted Christ. When he returns he will demand a reckoning from each according to her or his abilities. The accounting given by the slaves is thus the judgment of the world. Whoever withstands the judgment receives a share in the eternal banquet of joy (“enter into the joy of your master”). But those, like the third slave, who do not withstand the judgment will lose everything and will be thrown into the outermost darkness.
Thus Matthew interpreted the traditional Jesus parable, in light of the early church’s expectation of the return of Christ, as being about the judgment of the world, and apparently in doing so he also made changes in the text of the parable. In using it for his own teaching he updated it. That is the right of every Christian teacher. Every preacher today also does something similar in interpreting the Sunday gospeclass="underline" she or he brings it up to date. Luke did something similar with parallel material in the parable of the pounds (Luke 19:11-27).
None of that should prevent us from inquiring about the meaning Jesus intended in the parable. Was Jesus really talking about his own return in the parable of the talents? What was this parable about originally?
A Millionaire on a Business Trip
We can most readily enter into the imagery of the parable if we begin with the figure of the man who hands out the talents to his slaves. This is another of those immoral figures we encounter rather often, as we have seen, in Jesus’ parables. This “master” is one of the very wealthy, because he hands out enormous sums of money to his “slaves” or “servants”—that is, highly placed slaves or employees with significant responsibilities. In addition, this man is a boaster because he calls these huge sums “a few things,” or “a little,” that is, minor matters. That is, of course, an obvious understatement. Bankers nowadays talk casually of “peanuts” in much the same way. This boaster confirms quite candidly in his dialogue with the third slave that he conducts his business in immoral ways: “You knew, did you, that I reap where I did not sow, and gather where I did not scatter?” (Matt 25:26 // Luke 19:22). That is, the man uses evil methods in his business. He exploits other people. He lends money at usurious rates. He collects harshly; he sucks up everything. Probably he speculates habitually in high-risk ventures. Now he goes abroad for a while, perhaps to exploit new financial sources or to collect money.
In any case, this reconstruction of the original story in the parable is partly hypothetical. It could also be that the sums entrusted were elevated so enormously by Matthew himself, since the Lukan parallel speaks of “minas” (Luke 19:13), which are considerably less valuable than talents. In that case “trustworthy in a few things” (Luke 19:17) would not be ironic but intended seriously. But even if the original parable went that way, what follows must in any case have been part of it: slaves one and two are worthy reflections of their master. While he is abroad they each increase the capital entrusted to them by a hundred percent. That, obviously, could not have been done with solid buying and selling but only by methods executed behind closed doors, by daring acts outside the realm of legality that, of course, corresponded exactly to those of the master.