Danny ChaiI had a Scriptural breakthrough during the study last week. Parable of the talents. There are several elements of this parable that have always bothered me. One is where the last servant says that the master is a hard man, reaping where he has not sown. And the master acknowledges this. For the life of me, I have no idea what that means.
One other thing that’s always bothered me is how the master in the end gives the last slave’s talent to the first slave, who had 5 and gained 5 more. Why didn’t he give them to the slave who had 2 and gained 2 more? Or split it between them? They both earned 100% on what was given to them. The master just happened to give the first servant more to begin with. Based on things in their control, they were equally successful. So why give even more to the first servant, when he was preferentially treated to begin with? That just never seemed “fair” to me.
And I know it’s bothered me for a long time because I remember asking my Dad about it when I was a kid. He responded that in Luke’s version (at least I think it’s Luke), they’re all given 10 to start with. The first earns 10 more, the second servant 5 more, and the last none. In that scenario, it makes sense why the last’s pound is given to the first servant – he earned a greater return. But my dad’s answer isn’t satisfying at all. It’s fine for the Luke story. But that’s not how Matthew presents it; I want to know what Matthew’s point is. And I’ve been confused about that for a long time.
Here’s my breakthrough, and maybe it’s obvious, but it’s a breakthrough for me. My problem is that I’m still thinking of the talents as something for the pleasure and benefit of the servants themselves. If that’s true, then yeah, it’s unfair, and difficult to explain. But that’s not what they’re for. The talents aren’t theirs to begin with, won’t ever be their own, and anything they get from them aren’t theirs to keep either. It’s all for the master. Because of that, what the master does with the talents is pretty much irrelevant as far as fairness goes, because none of it is for the primary benefit of the servants themselves. I’ve been thinking about the point of the talents all wrong.
I was reminded again of that passage from A Long Way Down:
The trouble with my generation is that we all think we’re f***ing geniuses. Making something isn’t good enough for us, and neither is selling something, or teaching something, or even just doing something; we have to be something. It’s our inalienable right, as citizens of the twenty-first century. If Christina Aguilera or Britney or some American Idol jerk can be something, then why can’t I? Where’s mine, huh? … talent is never enough to make us happy, is it? I mean, it should be, because talent is a gift, and you should thank God for it, but I didn’t. It just pissed me off because I wasn’t being paid for it, and it didn’t get me on the cover of Rolling Stone.
That’s so true of me. I’ve been thinking of talents as a form of entitlement. Drives me crazy when I see people less talented than me achieving far more success. It’s not enough to be thankful for what I’m given; I’ve seen talent as a justification for deserving more for myself. Or that my talents are primarily for my own pleasure and benefit. That’s why the parable has never quite set well with me – I’ve never fully realized who the talents are for. I’ve completely missed the point, both in reading the parable and in my own life. My talents belong to the master, and they are for his glory.
I dunno, huge breakthrough for me. We’ll see how it plays out.