Taken at face value the Parable of the Talents raises several interesting lines of inquiry. Interpretations of the parable’s meaning over time have varied. On the face of it the message seems to commend and reward trustworthiness and punish laziness, with the subtheme of productiveness or lack of running underneath. Jesus makes a somewhat surprising statement at the end of the parable.

Like many of his statements the meaning is enigmatic – it could be this or it might be that. Is Jesus commending the dynamics of the market economy where investment fuels new development with a healthy profit return for the investor? Yet, his final statement for to those who have, more will be given, and they will have an abundance; but from those who have noting, even what they have will be taken away could simply be read as a statement of fact that this seems to be the way things are – leaving us to draw our own moral value conclusions.

Whatever conclusion we draw from this parable it presents us with a baffling question concerning Jesus’ apparent endorsement of lending with interest. I’ll return to this in due course.

For a community of people whose financial security is closely linked to the performance of the stock market – in a parish which in addition to the normal finance committee has a very specialized investment committee whose only task is to manage our stock portfolio – how do we hear this parable and who among the stewards do we identify with? Where do our sympathies lie?

Most of us struggle to hold a fiscal conservatism – at least when it comes to the management of our own money – in an uneasy tension within a more broadly socially liberal worldview. The fiscal conservative in us hears Jesus commending wise investment in the capital markets. For us this is not only a social good in that it sponsors innovation and development but also returns a healthy dividend on our investment. In this respect we fall very much in the camp of the master’s first two stewards. But what do we make of the third steward’s resistance to participating in this system? This parable captures our dilemma – it reassures our fiscal conservative values while challenging us to examine our blind subservience to an economic status quo that promotes inequality – as in- those who have, are given even more.

Taking a deeper dive into this story we find the Parable of the Talents is much more than a story about two stewards who in the successful management of their master’s affairs are amply rewarded for the virtues of trustworthiness and the skills of their financial acumen. The third steward in this story introduces a critical element in his view of his master as a harsh and unjust man. This disturbs the otherwise congratulatory tone pointing up the injustice of one who reaps where he has not sown and gathers where he has not scattered seed. Why, thinks this steward should I collude with this system that bears abundant fruit to a very few at the expense of the many.

We might be tempted to dismiss the third steward as a man with a grievance until we find the master himself, concurring with his steward’s assessment. The master says to this steward, if you knew that I am a man who reaps where I did not sow and gathers where I did not scatter, then you should have been even more diligent with my property for fear of the consequences of my wrath.

The master then takes the talent from the third steward and gives it to the steward who’s shown the greatest financial acumen. Of course, this being a Matthew kingdom story – a feature of which is punishment for those who don’t match up – we aren’t surprised to find the third steward punished by being thrown into outer darkness, where there is much weeping and gnashing of teeth. Let’s think of the first two stewards as fiscally conservative and the third steward a social liberal – challenging the system of inequality. But here’s the kicker. Jesus’ final judgment says for to those who have, more will be given, and they will have an abundance; but from those who have noting, even what they have will be taken away. Is this Jesus justifying the master’s actions? Or is he implying something else here?

The central paradox in this parable centers around Jesus appearing to put aside the prohibition against usury by commending interest bearing investments.

Charging interest on a loan was strictly condemned in Jewish law. The Torah allowed the practice only when the loan was made to non-Jews. The Prophets prohibited the practice outright no matter the circumstance. Therefore, it seems unlikely that Jesus, himself standing in the strict line of the Prophets would have so openly endorsed the practice.

The Church continued the prohibition against usury, prohibiting it outright. Yet, that the Torah allowed Jews to lend to foreigners at interest provided the Church with a very convenient workaround. Neither Christians nor Jews could lend at interest within their communities, but Jews could lend to Christians to meet the growing need for Christian princes and merchants to access additional sources of finance above and beyond what could be raised by taxation. Thus, everyone arrived at a workaround of the usury prohibition – everyone a winner. Deprived of the legal rights of land ownership lending at interest was for the Jews their primary means of wealth generation. A situation that paved the way for the Jews to become the lenders of choice in Medieval Europe – a development with unintended consequences.

The prohibition against usury is an ancient example of social liberalism. Social liberalism believes in the necessity for regulation of economic activity in the interest of preserving social stability. As we know from our own time when for the last 50 years a deregulation of economic activity has resulted in profound loss of trust in traditional civic institutions and the democratic system. The paradox is that those most propelled by grievances against a system that has eroded prosperity and entrenched inequality prefer politicians who fan the heat of their grievances while doing nothing to tackle the underlying root causes of grievance.

For to all who have, more will be given, and they will have abundance; but from those who have nothing, even what they have will be taken seems to be Jesus’ recognition of the facts on the ground in the 1^st-century. He would have witnessed the growing number of small landowners and tenant farmers forced off the land by agricultural reforms. Exposed to ballooning debt, leaft them in the end with less than they began with leading to indentured service -effectively slavery- as their only course of action.

Indentured service is today a practice widespread in countries with poor or no social regulation of market capitalism. As in Jesus day, from those who have nothing, even what they have will be taken away is the regrettable reality for many.  In the poorer districts of our own cities those living on the economic margins – driven by necessity and hampered by poor creditworthiness to take out payday loans at astonishingly high rates of compound interest lead many into ballooning debt. From those who have nothing, even what they have is taken away – becomes a reality of everyday life for so many in our society.

The circumventions of the prohibition against usury whereby the Jews became the lenders of choice to Christian princes and merchants had unforeseen consequences that only fed the flames of antisemitism – the misdirected expression of populist resentment in search of a scapegoat. Lying just beneath the surface of collective consciousness lies the primal fear of the other in our midst. Contemporary economic resentment and social grievance once again finds expression in breathing new life into old antisemitic tropes – reviving an old scapegoat to magic away our problems. The situation in Israel-Palestine is only throwing gasoline onto homegrown antisemitic embers already smoldering into flame.

At such a time it is our Christian responsibility to express our solidarity with our Jewish friends and neighbors – and we’ll have an opportunity to do so this coming Tuesday at the annual interfaith Thanksgiving Service at Temple-Beth-EL.

Who do we identify with in the parable of the talents? Do we easily see ourselves in the responses of the first two stewards whose actions of prudent risk-taking strike us as familiar, playing the equivalent of the ancient world’s stock market? Can we also see ourselves in relation to the third steward who challenges the socio-economic assumptions that result in one person – to use the agrarian images of the text itself – reaping where they have not sown and gathering where they have not scattered with impunity – afforded by their power of economic privilege but enabled by our systemic collusion? I suspect few of us have the courage to follow the example of the third steward, as much as we might applaud his stand.

If we believe this is a sacred text capable of speaking directly to us as a community, what do we hear in it that either commends or disturbs us? For the kingdom of heaven will be a paradoxical place where seeing things as they really are means not accepting that this is the way things have to be.