- Read part 1
- Read part 2
Q: I recently heard a new interpretation of the Parable of the Talents (Matthew 25:14-30) that basically says the master in the parable is greedy and cruel and is not representative of God. According to this view, the master is part of an unjust economic system that preys on the poor and that the servants who received the 5 talents and the 2 talents and multiplied them were participating in this unjust system, but the one who buried the talent given to him and did nothing with it was the hero of the story for refusing to participate in such an unjust system. In all honesty, I was shocked when I heard this. Have you ever heard that version of the parable?
A: (cont’d from last week…) Last week we were talking about how this new “twist” on the Parable of the Talents violated the rules of good Scriptural exegesis by not interpreting this passage within “the living Tradition of the whole Church,” (Catechism, #113). And we looked at how this Scripture passage is used liturgically, and how it is used in the Catechism of the Catholic Church, in order to determine how it has traditionally been viewed by the Church. In this week’s article, I want to look at how the Church Fathers have traditionally viewed this passage.
The author of the article from America Magazine, from which this new twist was drawn (to read the article: http://connection.ebscohost.com/c/tales/67114973/unmasking-greed), made the following points: 1) “Jesus did not live in a capitalist system in which it is thought that wealth can be increased by investment;” 2) “One who amassed large amounts for himself would be seen as greedy and wicked;” and 3) “The parable is not an exhortation for people to use their God-given talents to the full…it was not likely the way Jesus’ first hearers understood the parable, since ‘talenton’ [the Greek word used in the parable] does not have this metaphorical connotation in Greek.”
The response to point #1: While Jesus may not have lived in a “capitalist system,” if it was not thought that people could increase wealth through investment, then why does Jesus have the two industrious servants increase wealth through investment? The author even contradicts herself in the article by noting that, in the version of this parable in Luke (Luke 19:12-28), the master “instructs his slaves to invest the money.”
The response to point #2: Simply not true. In Jesus’ day, those with wealth were looked upon as being blessed by God. That’s why, when Jesus tells His disciples that it is harder for a rich man to enter the Kingdom of Heaven than for a camel to go through the eye of a needle, they ask, in astonishment: “Who then can be saved?” (Matt 19:23-25). If the rich were generally seen as “greedy and wicked,” why the astonishment at Jesus’ words?
The response to point #3: Was the idea of the “talents,” or “talenton,” as representing people’s “God-given talents” unknown to the ancient audience? Is that interpretation an invention of more modern audiences? The testimony of the Church Fathers would run contrary to that claim. St. John Chrysostom (4th century), “This parable is delivered against those who will not assist their neighbors with money, or words, or in any other way, but hide all that they have.” St. Jerome (4th century), “In the five, two, and one talent, we recognize the diversity of gifts wherewith we have been entrusted.” Origen (early 3rd century), “They to whom five talents were given, and they to whom two, and they to whom one, have diverse degrees of capacity, and one could not hold the measure of another.”
So, we see that the “talenton” were recognized, very early on in the Church, as being the talents, the abilities, the worldly goods, the totality of the gifts, given to us by God. It seems that the assumptions that underlie the interpretation of the Parable of the Talents as being about an evil master and an unjust economic system are simply without merit.
More from the Church Fathers on the Parable of the Talents: St. John Chrysostom, “Observe that not only he who robs others, or who works evil, is punished with extreme punishment, but he also who does not good works.” The servant who buried his talent is not seen as the hero of the parable here. St. Gregory of Nyssa (4th century), “Let him then who has understanding look that he hold not his peace; let him who has affluence not be dead to mercy; let him who has the art of guiding life communicate its use with his neighbor; and him who has the faculty of eloquence intercede with the rich for the poor.” All of these things – understanding, affluence, the art of good counsel, and the faculty of eloquence – were all viewed as talents, talents that should be used on behalf of God to help one’s neighbor, but which were instead buried by the wicked and slothful servant.
A: (cont’d from last week…) Last week we were talking about how this new “twist” on the Parable of the Talents violated the rules of good Scriptural exegesis by not interpreting this passage within “the living Tradition of the whole Church,” (Catechism, #113). And we looked at how this Scripture passage is used liturgically, and how it is used in the Catechism of the Catholic Church, in order to determine how it has traditionally been viewed by the Church. In this week’s article, I want to look at how the Church Fathers have traditionally viewed this passage.
The author of the article from America Magazine, from which this new twist was drawn (to read the article: http://connection.ebscohost.com/c/tales/67114973/unmasking-greed), made the following points: 1) “Jesus did not live in a capitalist system in which it is thought that wealth can be increased by investment;” 2) “One who amassed large amounts for himself would be seen as greedy and wicked;” and 3) “The parable is not an exhortation for people to use their God-given talents to the full…it was not likely the way Jesus’ first hearers understood the parable, since ‘talenton’ [the Greek word used in the parable] does not have this metaphorical connotation in Greek.”
The response to point #1: While Jesus may not have lived in a “capitalist system,” if it was not thought that people could increase wealth through investment, then why does Jesus have the two industrious servants increase wealth through investment? The author even contradicts herself in the article by noting that, in the version of this parable in Luke (Luke 19:12-28), the master “instructs his slaves to invest the money.”
The response to point #2: Simply not true. In Jesus’ day, those with wealth were looked upon as being blessed by God. That’s why, when Jesus tells His disciples that it is harder for a rich man to enter the Kingdom of Heaven than for a camel to go through the eye of a needle, they ask, in astonishment: “Who then can be saved?” (Matt 19:23-25). If the rich were generally seen as “greedy and wicked,” why the astonishment at Jesus’ words?
The response to point #3: Was the idea of the “talents,” or “talenton,” as representing people’s “God-given talents” unknown to the ancient audience? Is that interpretation an invention of more modern audiences? The testimony of the Church Fathers would run contrary to that claim. St. John Chrysostom (4th century), “This parable is delivered against those who will not assist their neighbors with money, or words, or in any other way, but hide all that they have.” St. Jerome (4th century), “In the five, two, and one talent, we recognize the diversity of gifts wherewith we have been entrusted.” Origen (early 3rd century), “They to whom five talents were given, and they to whom two, and they to whom one, have diverse degrees of capacity, and one could not hold the measure of another.”
So, we see that the “talenton” were recognized, very early on in the Church, as being the talents, the abilities, the worldly goods, the totality of the gifts, given to us by God. It seems that the assumptions that underlie the interpretation of the Parable of the Talents as being about an evil master and an unjust economic system are simply without merit.
More from the Church Fathers on the Parable of the Talents: St. John Chrysostom, “Observe that not only he who robs others, or who works evil, is punished with extreme punishment, but he also who does not good works.” The servant who buried his talent is not seen as the hero of the parable here. St. Gregory of Nyssa (4th century), “Let him then who has understanding look that he hold not his peace; let him who has affluence not be dead to mercy; let him who has the art of guiding life communicate its use with his neighbor; and him who has the faculty of eloquence intercede with the rich for the poor.” All of these things – understanding, affluence, the art of good counsel, and the faculty of eloquence – were all viewed as talents, talents that should be used on behalf of God to help one’s neighbor, but which were instead buried by the wicked and slothful servant.
The Parable of the Talents, when you consider the context within which it is written, the culture within which it was written, how the Church views this passage, and how it was viewed early on by the Church Fathers, is about Christ giving each of us a particular set of abilities and gifts, and we had better use them on His behalf in His absence or, when He returns, we will have a lot to answer for.
 | About John Martignoni John Martignoni is the Director of the Office of Evangelization for the Diocese of Birmingham in Alabama and also the President of the Bible Christian Society. John's column, Apologetics 101, appears regularly in the diocesan newspaper, the One Voice. If you have a question about the Catholic Faith, please send an email to: jmartignoni@bhmdiocese.org. And check out John's free audio and written apologetics materials at: www.biblechristiansociety.com. |
No comments:
Post a Comment