These two parables appear in Matthew 25:14-30 and Luke 19:11-27. The parallel narratives of a wealthy traveller, entrusting his servants with a lot of money, are similar enough that many commentators treat them as the same parable.
One common interpretation of these parables has the wealthy traveller as God, with the money as a symbolic metaphor of the gifts (yes, talents!) God has given each of us. Those who put their gifts to work are rewarded, and those who don’t are punished. The third servant who just buries the money is the villain of the piece. It sort of works as an interpretation, but certain details don’t quite fit, particularly about how the third servant should have been getting interest on the money he was given.
An alternative interpretation has the wealthy traveller as a sinful and exploitative ruler, with the moneymaking of the first two servants showing their complicity in unjustly acquiring the wealth of others. In this less symbolic interpretation the third servant is actually the hero; the only one brave enough to stand up against the exploiter, and not earn something for nothing.
This parable has been used to both support and deny capitalist economics. The standard interpretation lends itself to valorising money making and legitimising interest taking. The alternative interpretation has been cited as a condemnation of the unjustness of capitalist economics. Are either of these views justified? Let us see…..
Although structurally very similar, Matthew and Luke diverge in many of the details of the story. Sufficiently so, that we ought to ask whether these two accounts truly represent the same parable as told by Jesus himself.
If we prefer the theory that Luke had access to the text of Matthew when writing, then why does he change the context of the story so much? Did he also have an additional witness to work from, who remembered it differently, or who was perhaps recounting a separate occasion where Jesus himself told this story differently?
If alternatively, both Matthew and Luke have acquired the bones of this parable from the Q “sayings of Jesus” source, then it is more tolerable that they each put their own spin on it, based on their understanding of what Jesus meant.
Notably, the position this parable appears within their gospel texts, is quite different. Matthew includes it in the middle of a series of parables in connection with the End of the Age, whereas Luke embeds it within a narrative section, preceded by Zacchaeus, and followed by the entry to Jerusalem.
This difference of placement may explain some of the editorial choices in the framing of the parable. Matthew is recounting Jesus’s teaching on the end times, so he ends this parable with the third servant being thrown “outside, into the darkness, where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth” which he uses several times elsewhere as the fate of the wicked at the end times. Luke, on the other hand is about to show us Jesus’ entry into Jerusalem as a King, and therefore frames his version of the wealthy traveller as a coming King, whom many sought to reject. His third servant is not cast into the darkness; rather it is those who denied the traveller as King who get executed.
Having recognised the editorial purpose of each gospel writer, it becomes harder to sustain the notion that this parable of Jesus is somehow valorising the third servant, and criticising the wealthy traveller, unless we assume that both Matthew and Luke missed the real point of it.
Nevertheless, it is not an impossible proposition that Jesus was implicitly criticising the wealthy traveller. Matthew has already told us that Jesus said ” You cannot serve both God and money.” (Matt 6:24) and “it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for someone who is rich to enter the kingdom of God” (Matthew 19:23-26). Luke gives us “Blessed are you who are poor, for yours is the kingdom of God. […] But woe to you who are rich, for you have already received your comfort.” (Luke 6:20,24) and “Be careful to guard yourselves from every kind of greed. Life is not about having a lot of material possessions.” (Luke 12:15). So both these writers know that converting small amounts of money into large amounts of money has no part in how we enter the kingdom of God, and is actually a hindrance if anything. So a narrative which appears to directly reward that behaviour is at least problematic.
Specifically for the Luke version, this parable is told at the house of Zaccheus the corrupt and thus rich tax-collector, who has just given away half his wealth, and promised fourfold recompense to any he had previously cheated. It appears inconceivable that Jesus is commending money-making in response to the repentance of Zaccheus.
In a similar vein, the Old Testament is clear that lending money to other believers to gain interest is forbidden (Deut 23:19). So it is also problematic that both versions of this parable have the wealthy traveller saying something about how the third servant ought to have earned some interest with their master’s money. If Jesus is commending the earning of interest in this parable, as some commentators suggest, then he is reversing the teaching of the Old Testament, which seems unlikely. Consequently, it is then less easy for us to confidently identify the wealthy traveller with God, and the servants as God’s people.
Furthermore, what are we to make of the rewards which the first two servants receive? In Matthew, both the first two servants double their money and get exactly the same reward: the commendation of their master, and a share in his happiness. But in Luke, the first two servants earn different amounts of money (x10, x5) and receive proportionally different rewards. Are we supposed to interpret Luke’s account as supporting different levels of reward in heaven, based on our works in life? Some commentators take this view, placing this text alongside 1 Corinthians 3:11-15 where they detect some sort of gold or silver classes in heaven in contrast with the cheaper stone and wood seats further back. To me this interpretation looks like a backdoor salvation by works. I remain unconvinced: it seems risky to derive a theology of variable rewards in heaven from Luke’s account of the wealthy traveller, where even its parallel passage in Matthew denies that interpretation.
So a question we need to ask ourselves, is to what extent Jesus is being either literal or figurative in this story. Is this parable his teaching on money-making and investment strategy, where somehow successful businessmen do better in heaven? Or are we instead expected to shun such capitalist exploitation as the the third servant does, and repent alongside Zaccheus? Or is this parable not actually about money-making at all, and is really about using God’s gifts or even something else?
We should note that it probably illegitimate to interpret the money-making of the first two servants as symbolic of the use of god-given gifts (and not really about money) but then to interpret the statement about interest earning as a literal divine affirmation of a worldly practice forbidden in the Old Testament. We don’t get to have it both ways. Either the whole story is about the literal use or abuse of money, or else the whole story is symbolic and not really about money at all.
In trying to figure out who the wealthy traveller is meant to represent, we can review other parables of Jesus. In many parables, such as the preceding Parable of the Ten Virgins, or the Parable of the Workers in the Vineyard, it seems clear that the authority figure is God/Jesus. But in others, such as the parable of the Friend at Night (Luke 11:5-8) or the parable of the Unjust Judge (Luke 18:1-8), the authority figure is clearly not God/Jesus, because their help is grudging and tardy. So we cannot just assume the wealthy traveller represents God/Jesus, nor can we assume that his actions reveal the will of God.
When rich men appear in Jesus’ stories, they are usually someone who will struggle to find faith because they are rich (Rich Young Man, Matt/Mark/Luke) or else they are condemned for ignoring the suffering of the poor (Rich Man and Lazarus, Luke 16:19-31) or for their foolishness (Rich Fool, Luke 12). Both the Rich Young Man and Zaccheus have to give away their wealth in order to enter the Kingdom, and only one succeeds.
The closest parallel to the wealthy traveller may be the rich owner in the Parable of the Shrewd Manager, recounted in Luke 16. In that story, the wasteful servant of the rich man dishonestly bribes the debtors of his master, with his master’s money, and is then unexpectedly commended for his cleverness by his master. Clearly this rich man is not meant to represent God, nor to be any other kind of role model for God’s people; he is a figure of corruption. Yet Jesus uses this story to teach several things:
- like the shrewd manager, we should use the passing wealth of this life to “make friends” in the next life, by which Jesus appears to mean evangelise and/or support poorer christians
- unlike the shrewd manager, we should be faithful, and not corrupt in financial dealings
- no one can serve both God and money
With these thoughts in mind, we can turn again to the parable of the wealthy traveller. Rich men are never the good guys in Jesus’s stories, so we cannot assume that this wealthy traveller represents God. The listeners of Jesus would likely assume this rich man was either corrupt or an oppressor or both; how else would he have become rich and stayed rich? Thus the point of the first two servants is not that they were good at money-making (which Jesus repeatedly warns against elsewhere), but rather that they were “faithful” to the command of their master, and “trustworthy” in doing so. Conversely the third servant is punished not for his failure to earn interest, but for his failure to be faithful to the command of his master.
What then do we make of the redistribution of the money from the third servant to the first? In the figurative interpretation where the wealthy traveller is God, the confiscation of the money from the third servant could be seen as judgement day: God’s gift of life is withdrawn. But what interpretation can we then place on that money then being given to the first servant? Are we supposed to believe that somehow faithful christians get a better outcome specifically because other people are unfaithful? It doesn’t make sense.
But in the interpretation where the rich man is corrupt or oppressive, it works much better: the rich man doesn’t care about a just outcome; his concern is merely to reward his faithful henchmen.
Once we focus on faithfulness rather than the money-making, it is less plausible that the third servant is meant to be some kind of hero in this story. He is merely a faithless servant, who is correctly thrown out.
In summary then:
- The rich man is not a metaphor for God; rather “he reaps where he has not sown“
- I decline the figurative interpretation where the money stands for god-given gifts and talents
- It is the faithfulness and trustworthiness of the servants which is the key message
- These verses provide no moral justification for wealth accumulation or interest taking (condemned elsewhere)