What follows is something I wrote a while ago but was reminded of this week. It gets at one of the main issues that led me to distrust the God described (at certain points) in the Bible.
-----
In the 25th chapter of Matthew, Jesus likens the coming kingdom to a master who goes on a long journey, leaving his property in the hands of three servants. The first receives five “talents” (units of money), the second gets two talents, and the third is given one, “each according to his ability.” There are no explicit instructions about what’s to be done with these allotments, but the first two servants get to work “at once,” Jesus says in the story, each of them doubling the original amount by their successful stewardship of the master’s property.
“But the man who had received the one talent,” Jesus says, “went off, dug a hole in the ground and hid his master’s money.”
When the master returns to “settle accounts,” the first two servants get rave reviews: “Well done, good and faithful servant! You have been faithful with a few things; I will put you in charge of many things. Come and share your master’s happiness!” The contrast with his response to the third servant could not be more stark.
"I knew that you were a hard man, harvesting where you have not sown and gathering where you have not scattered seed,” the servant begins. “So I was afraid and went out and hid your talent in the ground. See, here is what belongs to you."
His confession is an honest one, giving a straightforward account of his actions. But he’s done for: "His master replied, 'You wicked, lazy servant! So you knew that I harvest where I have not sown and gather where I have not scattered seed? Well then, you should have put my money on deposit with bankers, so that when I returned I would have received it back with interest. Take the talent from him and give it to the one who has the ten talents … throw that worthless servant outside, into the darkness, where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth.'"
The master’s reprimand is troubling in its focus on the stupidity of the servant, who is roundly dismissed as a wicked, slothful fool, and who receives no meaningful response to his admitted fears of the master’s tactics.
But there is an even harsher magic at work in the master’s rebuke, and that is that the master fully acknowledges himself to be a hard man, reaping where he has not sown, and seems, if anything, a little proud of the trait. Jesus does not address the ethical issues that the master’s cruelty raises. That appears to beside the point in the story.
And what is that point? This is not one of the parables that Jesus goes on to unpack for his baffled disciples, but here’s my guess: that it makes you worthless and lazy and even evil not to buckle down and please and obey, in anticipation of reward. (Ouch.) Hesitations, questions, doubts—these distract and destroy.
-------
I wrote that at a point when my own hesitations, questions, and doubts had finally overwhelmed me past the point of return. The lighter side of the parable still stands--the value of putting to use the things we possess, the skills we have. But words are powerful, and as someone who was instructed to take the words of scripture to heart and to take them to be authoritative, I took to heart not only the master's commendations but also his insistence that he harvests where he has not sown and gathers where he has not scattered seed. And I found I could no longer worship such a master with any confidence or sincerity whatsoever.
7 comments:
So if a wicked servant describes his master as a miser, should we believe him? In this parable, God proves to be otherwise than the servant's misconception, because he agrees to judge the servant by his own standards. Even then, the servant is found wanting. The point of the parable is that even if we are judged by our own standards, we cannot be perfect - thus the need to trust God's grace (i.e. his provision of substitutionary atonement) for salvation from sin.
I'm not sure who you are, Ben, but thanks for reading and I appreciate the comment.
First, a clarification: as my title suggests, I'm definitely emphasizing here the "dark side" of this particular passage. I realize that there is more to the parable than the extreme cruelty evident in the master's response.
Secondly, though, I guess I just don't share the same presuppositions as you do about what's going on here. The third servant may be lazy, but that makes him lazy, not wicked, as your question assumes. And certainly not deserving of being tossed on a trash heap by any master (god) who prides himself on being gracious and loving. If the third servant really was afraid, as he tells the master he was, why not address the "misconception" instead of sending him into the darkness?
I agree we do not live perfectly. But I do not think that this trait makes us utterly wretched and worthy of eternal despair and pain. Rather, it makes us thoroughly human.
As for the talents parable, the gospel message you've eked out seems a stretch to me. Why in the world are the two successful servants even in the story, if that's the point of it?
But speaking of points of things, maybe this is all beside the point. After all, we're trying to wrap our heads around a story that leaves so much unsaid that it very easily leads to multiple conclusions. Are these servants investing in ways that exploit the multitudes (something we know can happen these days)? Did the master give instructions that aren't recorded in the parable? Or maybe Jesus actually meant it as radically critical of the economic situation at the time, and the master is money (as in "you cannot serve two masters")and the first two servants worship money happily and the third is staging a quiet protest by refusing to be party to an unjust economic system.
That last idea may be a bit of a stretch. Thinking aloud here.
One last thought and I'll leave you alone--Does the talents parable leave you with no concerns? Do you not find it the least bit disturbing, in terms of wondering about the goodness/graciousness/love of a god like this master? I'm honestly curious.
The point to me was that the servant was acting out of fear - and no wonder given the master's abusive response, which always struck me as too clever by half. Thus, the servant is chastised for being fearful, which seems to me to be the natural response when you have an all-powerful master whose ways are murky - and who is actually kind of crooked and is *not at all offended* to be accused of being crooked. As a young Catholic, I was discouraged from thinking I knew better than scripture and from essentially drawing my own conclusions from the readings, but now that I know better, here's the deal - the master in the parable is exactly the same as the rich old brothers who pulled off an economically-based thought-experiment in Trading Places, and those guys were assholes. And you know what? Maybe the slave was culturally illiterate - he did have the least ability of the three - and didn't know what the hell to do at the bank. Maybe he didn't know how the world of finance worked. Maybe the bankers were evil, and providing outrageous interest on subprime loans that they marketed to people like the servant who didn't know any better but were then blamed for the profligacy of those who did know what they were doing once the economy went tits-up. This is why I don't like parables: anecdotal evidence is bullshit.
I was also disgusted that I was supposed to identify with a patriarchal master-slave dynamic, but maybe that's just the freedom-loving American in me.
Hi Evie,
The talents parable has certainly raised red flags for me in the past. The Bible's consistent claim is that God is just; and I'm not sure what it means to "harvest where one has not sown," but it doesn't really sound like justice to me. On the other hand, if that really is what God is like, I need to change my view of him, not simply wish that he was different than he is. However, I don't believe this parable actually forces me to think of God as a harsh taskmaster, evil, cruel, or unloving.
In this case, the servant's fear and laziness was a symptom of his wickedness, not the other way around. After all, in what way can it be said that a sovereign God has ever harvested where he has not sown or gathered where he has not scattered seed? The servant's wickedness was in believing that God is unjust and cannot be trusted.
I do think I was unclear about the point of the parable. The point, as I see it, regarding the wicked servant, is not a gospel message. The point is that even if we are judged by our own standards, we cannot be perfect. The warning against the wicked servant is a warning against unbelief, because unbelief always tries to create its own standards. But then it can't even live up to those. The gospel (i.e. good news) only applies to the believing servants, which is the reason they are properly included in the story. God is both just and merciful. I can't say for sure that I have the correct interpretation of the parable. However, this is more like what a believing response would look like. This is not to say that all forms of doubt are wicked. Genuine doubts will arise from time to time for every Christian, but there are different responses to doubt - some good, some bad.
Your last idea is truly a stretch. The parable starts by saying "it [i.e. the kingdom of heaven] is like..." It seems impossible to me to say that the Kingdom of Heaven is like a place where the kind are trampled on and the greedy are made wealthy. But I understand your point - that the parable leaves a lot unsaid. But let's not force the unsaid parts to contradict the said parts or the witness of the rest of Scripture that God truly is both just and merciful.
I guess what I'm really taking issue with is your commentary on your post of yesteryear. You say that this parable "gets at one of the main issues that led me to distrust the God described (at certian points) in the Bible." Perhaps I misunderstand that line, but it sounds like you are blaming this parable (partly) for your unbelief. However, a believing mind would attempt to exhonorate God, and in this case would at least have the potential of doing so. It seems that your unbelief is the cause, not the result, of your interpretation of the parable.
In your epilogue, there are two issues. First, that the master actually insists that he harvests where he has not sown. In the parable, there is no insistence by the master on that matter. It is simply not addressed. You are assuming that not addressing the issue is admitting guilt; or worse, instead of admitting guilt, actually being proud of it. Second, on what basis does the "lighter side" of the parable "still stand"? If the Bible is not the word of God, then why listen to it? Does the "lighter side" stand simply as a suggestion among many suggestions, or does it have a moral "ought" behind it? If an "ought," then who decides what portions of the Bible carry this "ought" with them? But if not, then what can you possibly mean by saying that it "stands"? But if it really does stand, and we should make use of what is given to us, then sloth is actually a sin. Not as big of a sin as murder, but still a sin. If it is a sin against an infinite person, then it is worthy of an infinite punishment. The only way a finite person can receive an infinite punishment is if the punishment stretches through eternity. For Americans, this kind of absolute justice is very hard to understand. I think that is in part because of a Christian heritage that encourages us, even requires us, to show mercy on a personal level. In many cultures, people understand God's justice very easily, and it is his love that they can't comprehend.
It is clear that you are correct about our presuppositions differing. But that is the whole point I'm trying to make. Without a belief in the God of the Bible and his testimony about his word, biblical interpretation will always be muddled. As fallen creatures, we will always misconstrue the words of God to justify ourselves in our own eyes. But as Tim Keller says in his book _The_Reason_for_God_, if you are going to doubt the Bible, to be intellectually honest with yourself, you need to also doubt your doubts. Subject your doubts about the Bible to the same rigors of scrutiny that you subject the Bible itself, and you will find that either there is nothing at all that "stands," or that the only foundation that stands at all is the Biblical one.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kxup3OS5ZhQ
BTW: We do know each other. Just click on my name. I hope I haven't offended you.
Oh, hey there! I don't know why I didn't think to click on your name before. Hope you're well, Ben.
I can't begin to address your comments adequately at the moment, but here's one thing that strikes me: You write, "If the Bible is not the word of God, then why listen to it?"
My abridged answer would be that we wisely listen to what other people and other books and other artworks offer us, not because they are divine revelations, but because time and again we find solace and practical help from such sources. Just because I'm unconvinced that the Bible is the top-down, infallible, final revelation doesn't make it worthless in my view. Instead, I'm actually freed to explore it further.
As to Keller, I've read his bestseller twice, been given several copies by concerned associates, but I find him mostly re-stating C.S. Lewis, whose nonfiction only left me in despair (especially his messiah-madman-or-something-worse thesis in Mere Christianity).
As to doubting my doubts? Believe me, I do. Every single day. This is not a path I expected to go down, and I often feel very alone.
But! I am mostly glad I did. Cheers. And thanks again for sharing your thoughts.
Interesting read...
https://thecompassmagazine.com/blog/misjudging-the-master-where-the-one-talent-servant-went-wrong
Post a Comment