"The Rich Get Richer…"
Sermon Presented November 13, 2005
Matthew 25:14-30
When I was in seminary, I heard a sermon delivered by one of my professors, Dr. David May, that has haunted me ever since. I continue to think about it because he interpreted the text differently than any interpretation I had ever heard. (As an aside, the Southern Baptist seminary board of trustees used that sermon as a reason for not giving him tenure. They claimed he was outside of orthodox interpretation.) This morning I want to give you a new look at a familiar text so that you can contemplate a new understanding. Please, don't fire me because of this sermon!
This is a parable picturing the Kingdom of God and is attributed to Jesus. Luke also includes this parable, but it is different than Matthew's and Luke doesn't compare the parable to the Kingdom of God. I invite you to hear this parable, hopefully as a fresh word from God for the 21st century.
Matthew 25:14-30 (Read Text.)
When we read this parable, we tend to read it through the filter of our 21st century culture. Today, the person who makes money - who creates new markets and expands a business, is someone to be admired. Our newspapers are filled with stories of the geniuses of the financial and technological world! Bill Gates, Warren Buffet, Oprah Winfrey and Steve Jobs are household names, and they are greatly admired in our culture. However, in the first century, a person who gained a fortune was considered wicked. Let's look at the parable, as well as the audience Jesus is addressing.
The story goes like this. A wealthy man distributes an astonishing amount of money to three slaves and then leaves town. (A talent was equal to 6000 denarii - 15 to 20 years' wages, so in modern terms, that would put the amount at about 2 ½ million for the first slave, 1 million for the second and ½ a million for the third.) We can't even envision that much money being entrusted to slaves. However, the purpose of a parable is to shock and get the listeners' attention - and this, it does!
The story tells us that after the owner hands over the money, he leaves town, not telling them when he will return or what to do with the money. It's in their trust. They appear to be free to do what they deem necessary to keep it safe, and the owner doesn't seek periodic accountings. When the owner returns after a long absence, we learn that he expected them to increase his wealth.
The slaves handle the money differently. The first
two follow the example of the wealthy owner and immediately do some
trading and double the money. Who among us wouldn't like to invest in
the stock market and quickly double our investment? Just as the stock
market is risky, I imagine the ventures of the slaves also entailed
risk.
However, the third slave doesn't feel the excitement that the other
two feel at being entrusted with such a great sum of money. In fact,
he's scared to death. He doesn't want the responsibility of handling
it and besides he doesn't respect the owner. He fears him and believes
him to be dishonest - taking what isn't his to take. So he buries the
money and goes about the business of performing his required tasks while
his master is away.
After a long absence, the owner returns and demands a reporting from the slaves. He commends those who double his money. However, when the third servant confesses his fear and what he did, he is immediately thrown into outer darkness.
Until I heard Dr. May's sermon, I assumed that the owner represented God and the three slaves represented people who were given gifts by God and expected to use them wisely. Those who use them wisely are rewarded and the one who buries his is punished. But how would someone in Jesus' audience understand this story? How would a first century peasant hear the parable? Could such a story be good news to a peasant?
Good news is usually a two-sided affair. A person who wins 340 million dollars in the lottery receives good news. But the millions of other ticket holders who hoped to win don't hear the news as good. If this parable is expected to offer good news about the kingdom of God, it's clearly not good news for the peasant. For a peasant, it would be a story of terror.
Let me explain. The first century world was not a capitalistic society, but was built on the belief that all good things in life are limited in quantity and there is no way to increase the available quantities. So if a person is to improve his or her social position, it can only be done at the expense of another. In that society, an honorable person avoided accumulating wealth because this would be considered a threat to the community balance. Since all goods are limited, the only way a person could accumulate wealth was to take someone else's share. Two old Mediterranean proverbs say: "Every rich person is either unjust or the heir of an unjust person," and "Every rich person is a thief or the heir of a thief." This was the first century outlook. This was what Jesus' listeners believed. The primary ways to increase wealth were trading, tax collection and money lending - all dishonorable professions. Those who made a profit did so by taking from others.
A community's wealth is represented by the shape of a pie. A larger share of the pie for one automatically means a smaller share for someone else. There simply isn't enough of anything to go around or any way to increase the size of the pie. People worked to maintain the family and the well being of the village and not to gain wealth. Traders amassed wealth, but peasants did not. Peasants lived at the subsistence level and viewed traders as evil exploiters.
An ancient saying from the book of Sirach says: "A merchant can hardly keep from wrongdoing, and a tradesman will not be declared innocent of sin" (26:29.) In the New Testament world, the rich are considered inherently evil. They prey on the weak, take additional shares of the limited pie and thereby amass what isn't rightfully theirs.
With this understanding, what are we to make of the master who amasses new wealth? He reaps what he doesn't sow and gathers what he doesn't plant. He interrogates his servants, inspects the ledgers and deals harshly with the servant who buries the talent. And what are we to make of servants who cooperate with his scheme and proudly announce their success? Can this story possibly be seen as good news by Jesus' audience?
It can only be seen as good news from the perspective of the rich and that is the interpretation we have accepted. In our capitalistic world we assume that the actions of the master are justified and that he is an honorable man. In fact, we usually use him as an allegorical figure for God. But from the perspective of Jesus' audience, the owner would be viewed as greedy to the core!
However, the third servant, who protects the existing share of his master, does exactly what an honorable person should do. Josephus, a first century historian, wrote that if a person entrusted with money loses any portion of that deposit he must face a tribunal of seven judges swearing that he didn't use any of it or lose it through malice or intent. The third servant chooses to bury the treasure, precisely what rabbinic law specifies. Since burying is safer than other means of protection, the rabbis ruled that the person burying an entrusted amount isn't responsible for any loss. The third servant doesn't attempt to double his master's money, but honorably refrains from taking anything that belongs to another.
Remember that the third servant says he is afraid because his master is a harsh and cruel man. I'm sure the servant was afraid! Sirach (13:4) says, "A rich man will exploit you if you can be of use to him, but if you're in need he will forsake you." And true to form, the master rewards those who cooperate with him in his scheme to gain more wealth and punishes the one who buries the treasure.
Again my question: How do you think Jesus' audience heard this parable? The peasants probably heaved a sigh of relief that the third servant understood what to do and did it well. The wealthy would affirm the master, but the peasants would say "No!"
The master condemns the third servant, but does Jesus? And does Jesus approve of the master? We modern readers assume he did. But it's just possible that Jesus doesn't, and that he in fact condemns the master's viewpoint in the same way his peasant listeners would have done.
In Luke 6:35 we read that Jesus says to "Lend, expecting nothing in return." Perhaps, then, we should assume that Jesus, who doesn't recommend lending money with interest, expects us to figure out his condemnation of the master's attitude. It's unlikely that Jesus' hearers would conclude that the behavior of the master is being praised or that the master somehow represents God.
If we read just three verses further, Jesus speaks of judgment and we hear him say: "the king (that is the one in charge of the kingdom) will say to those at his right hand, 'Come, you that are blessed by my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world. For I was hungry and you gave me food; I was thirsty and you gave me something to drink; I was a stranger and you welcomed me; I was naked and you gave me clothing; I was sick and you took care of me; I was in prison and you visited me." And when they question him as to when that might have occurred, Jesus tells them it was when they shared with those in need. In other words, it is when we share with the needy from our piece of the pie, from our position of abundance, that we are part of the Kingdom of God, and not when we take from another. It's not God's plan for the rich to get richer and the poor poorer.
We may indeed say that this parable is a warning, but to whom? I doubt if it is a warning to those who aren't sufficiently venturesome or industrious with what they have been given. Instead it may be a warning to those companies who exploit the labor market of third world nations in order to turn a quick profit, or to the wealthy not to use power tactics to crush their competitors. It may be a warning to those of us who consume the world's natural resources without considering that the pie is only so large and when we take too large a piece, other nations, other peoples and future generations will suffer. It may be a warning to us in our consumer-oriented world that we need to get by on much less. It may be a warning to those of us who spend too much time and effort meeting our own needs and not enough time caring for others. You see, in God's kingdom, the rules are reversed. Could we possibly have been wrong all these years? Think about it!
(Sources: The New Testament World by Bruce Malina & "A Peasant Reading of the Parable of the Talents/Pounds: A Text of Terror?" by Richard Rohrbaugh in Biblical Theology Bulletin, vol. 23.)
