The Problem of the Talents

Reflections for the Thirty-third Sunday in Ordinary Time (Proverbs 31:10-13, 19-20, 30-31, 1 Thessalonians 5:1-6, Matthew 25:14-30)

This Sunday’s parable is quite a hard one to digest. Anyone who cares about social justice will have at least three problems with its teaching.

1. The Problem of Inequality: Firstly, why aren’t the talents distributed equally? Why the disparity in entrusting five talents to the first servant, two to the second, and just one to the third? The reason cited in the gospel is the famous ‘to each according to his ability’ principle. Is that a just principle for our society? In treating people according to their ability, are we not entrapping the ‘not-so-able’ servants of our times in systemic poverty? Is the Gospel justifying the disease of inequality in the name of ‘ability’ or ‘talent’?

2. The problem of the ‘toxic’ master: Secondly, there is an evident problem with how the master treats his servants. He is overjoyed with the first two who produced profits with his investment. However, the third one is met with cruelty at the hands of his master. The description he provides of his ‘toxic’ master is quite revealing: “a demanding person, harvesting without planting, and gathering without scattering”. The servant is labelled in not-so-gospel-worthy terms: ‘wicked’, ‘lazy’, and ‘useless’ by a master who seems to value his servants only for their usefulness. Is this corporate ‘taskmaster’ image appropriate to depict the merciful Father whom Jesus came to reveal? Is our sonship and discipleship just about producing results?

3. The ‘retribution’ problem: Thirdly, the ending is disheartening. The master does nothing to rectify the initial inequality. Adding insult to injury, the one talent of the third servant is taken away from him and handed over to the one who had ten. Thus, the first servant ends up with eleven talents, the second one with four and the third one is thrown into darkness filled with wailing and grinding of teeth. Is there a more realistic image of the growing divide between the rich and poor typical of our modern societies?

Sensitive to each of these valid problems, how do we interpret the meaning of this parable? There is a lot to unpack here.

1. Read the Room: Firstly, it is outrageous to demand answers to the problems of 21st-century economics from a biblical parable narrated 2000 years ago in a totally different context, to a different audience, and with a different intention. Jesus is employing here the prevalent system of ‘absentee landlordism’ of his times to instruct his disciples on what lies ahead for them. As he nears the end of his public ministry (Matthew 25), he is now preparing to leave on a long ‘journey’ (to Calvary) to the ‘distant’ country (Ascension). Having formed his disciples in view of the Kingdom mission for the past three and a half years, he now has to entrust his most valuable treasure (the Church) to his disciples, “each according to their ability” (ministries) with the expectation that when it is time for his ‘return’ for the final ‘audit’ (Second Coming), he would find the Church alive, active, and fruitful.

2. Relationship vs possession: To enter the profound meaning of this parable, we need to understand the talents not in the order of ‘possession’ but in the order of ‘relationship’. The talent testifies to the fact that the master is vested in his disciples. He counts on their ability to take care of his most treasured possessions in his absence. He thus offers a promotion from servanthood to partnership. This offer is certainly not merited but it does entail a spirit of responsibility. As ‘partners’, the master expects them to use their reason and take thoughtful, responsible initiatives to be able to produce lasting fruits. The first two respond to this offer through their attachment to him and the desire to be “good and faithful servants”. In stark contrast, the third servant does not receive his talent as an offer of ‘relationship’ but as an object of ‘possession’ entrusted to his care. No wonder, he chooses to ’bury’ it. He saw himself as a servant, charged with "watching over the talent". Though honest in returning the original sum, he failed in his promotion from servanthood to partnership.

3. Profit or Entrepreneurship: The master does not value profit as much as he values entrepreneurship. Note that the rewards given to the first servant who earned 5 talents and the second who earned 2 are virtually identical: appreciation (Well done, my good and faithful servant), recognition (l give you great responsibilities) and a share in his joy” (v.21&23). What matters more to the master, therefore, is not the size of the profits earned but the entrepreneurship and commitment of his ‘partners’ (100% from the first two and 0% from the third). The failure of the third servant is that he was “paralyzed by fear” and chose to bury his talent instead of making use of it. The parable aims to present us with two different ways of responding to God’s offer of partnership: one that paralyzes us with fear, and the other that enables us to respond with entrepreneurship, creativity, and a sense of belonging.

Jesus has appointed you and me as his partners to take care of his kingdom project. Can we become enterprising partners, willing to carry out our mission with entrepreneurship and commitment? Can our servanthood shed its ‘servile’ tag to embrace the call to become productive partners? “I no longer call you servants”, says the Lord, “because a master doesn’t confide in his slaves. You are my friends”.