This coming Sunday is the 33rd Sunday in Ordinary Time. Our gospel is the Parable of the Talents. Over the years I have added additional background materials. As a result, this week there will be days with more than one post – such as today! I hope you find it interesting and not too arcane.

Parallels. This parable has parallels in Mark and Luke. The version in Mark (13:34 ff) sticks to the basic storyline but lacks the detail present in Matthew’s version. The version in Luke (19:11-27) is slightly more rich in details than Matthew, but there are differences: an explicit explanatory introduction (Luke 19:11), the added motif of the journey “to receive kingship,” rebellious subjects, and their punishment (Luke 19:14, 27).  Moreover, the details of the story in Luke differ significantly: ten slaves, each given the same amount although much smaller sums of money (mina vs. talent) than in Matthew.  Also there is the resulting authority over cities as the reward for good trading.

The essential pattern of the story of trading in the master’s absence is the same, with three servants singled out, similar commendation of the successful slaves, the same excuses by the third servant and the same response from the master, the one talent/mina given to the servant with ten, and even the same apparently editorial comment in Luke 19:26 as in Matt 25:29: “ For to everyone who has, more will be given and he will grow rich; but from the one who has not, even what he has will be taken away.”.

There is one version of the parable that appears in the apocryphal “Gospel of the Nazarenes” (likely written late 2nd century in Alexandria). There one servant multiplies the capital, one hides it, and one squanders it with harlots and flute girls. The first is rewarded, the second rebuked, the third cast into prison. This version focuses on the end judgment with little attention to preparedness or vigilance.

The preceding parables have been about readiness, and this one is particularly about faithful stewardship which readiness produces. The third in the series of parables about being ready returns to a setting similar to that of the first, a master dealing with his servants. But this time there is a more specific focus on their commercial responsibility in their master’s absence. Each is left with a very large sum of money, with no instructions on what to do with it, and the story turns on their different ways of exercising this responsibility. There is again a division between good and bad, between success and failure. Yet the “failure” of the last servant consists not in any loss of money, but in returning it without increase. It was not that he did something wrong—he simply did nothing. This is, then, apparently, a parable about maximizing opportunities, not wasting them. To be “ready” for the master’s return means to use the intervening time to maximum gain; it is again about continuing life and work rather than about calculating the date and being alert for his actual arrival. This third parable is thus essentially making the same point about readiness as the two preceding ones (Mt 24:45-51 and Mt 25:1-13).

Eschatological Application. “Eschatology” refers to the part of theology concerned with death, judgment, and the final destiny of the soul and of humankind. With the parable set between Matthew’s “little apocalypse” and verses regarding the judgment upon the nations, one is rightly prepared to be concerned with things eschatological. This very setting affects the way the parable is told. The repeated invitation, “Come, share your master’s joy” (vv. 21, 23), sounds more like the language of heaven than of commerce; and the ultimate fate of the unsuccessful servant is described in v. 30 in the eschatological terms which have become familiar from other judgment sayings and parables (8:12; 22:13; cf. 13:42, 50; 24:51).

As an aside, the excellent scripture scholar N. T. Wright [Victory 632–639] argues that the parable is not about Jesus’ parousia (2nd coming) but about the OT hope of “YHWH’s return to Zion,” symbolized and embodied in Jesus’ own coming to Jerusalem. Wright argues for a “realized eschatology” that is completely fulfilled in the person of Jesus. He has a point although this proposal fits much better with the introduction in Luke 19:11 than with the Matthean context, unless one is prepared to argue, as Wright does, that there is no idea of Jesus’ parousia anywhere in this discourse. It should be noted that Wright is of the considered view there is no idea of the parousia anywhere in the gospels.

Image credit: The Parable of the Talents by Willem de Porter, 17th century, National Gallery of Prague, PD-US