An Unfair Parable

If you read the Parable Of The Talents (Matthew 25:14-30) at a glance, you may find it to be unfair on 3 counts. Let me describe how.

The master gave 5 talents to the 1st servant, 2 talents to the 2nd servant, and 1 talent to the 3rd servant.

With the 5 talents that the 1st servant had, he made another 5 talents. His master was happy with him. With the 2 talents that the 2nd servant had, he made another 2 talents. His master was equally happy with him.

1st hint of injustice: Why is the master equally happy with the 2nd servant? Shouldn’t he be happier with the 1st servant for bringing in a bigger profit?

With the 1 talent that the 3rd servant had, he hid it in the ground and did not make any extra talents. He was scared of risking his only talent, because he was afraid of his master, whom he “knew to be a hard man, reaping where (he has) not sown, and gathering where (he has) not scattered seed.” If indeed the master was such a man, isn’t it reasonable for the 3rd servant to play it safe?

The master actually admitted that he was a hard man by saying, “You knew that I reap where I have not sown, and gather where I have not scattered seed.”

2nd hint of injustice: Instead of apologizing for his hard nature, the master called the 3rd servant, “You wicked and lazy servant!”

3rd hint of injustice: Not only did the master call the 3rd servant wicked and lazy, he took the only talent that the 3rd servant has, and gave it to the 1st servant who has 10 talents. Why does the master delight in increasing the gap between the rich and the poor?

A deeper examination of that parable will explain the “injustice” seen in it.

The 1st accusation of injustice does not hold water. The 1st and 2nd servants increased their initial amount of talents by the same factor of multiplication. Therefore, it is not unfair for the master to be equally happy with both servants. Both have been equally industrious, considering the amount initially given to them.

To answer the 2nd hint of injustice, we have to see the parable from the angle of a sovereign God relating to man. The 3rd servant rightfully deserved to be called wicked and lazy, because he has no fear of his master. He knows that his master is a hard man, but yet he does not act on that knowledge. He does not lift a finger to be accountable for the talent given to him.

If the 3rd servant does not know that his master is a hard man, he can plead innocence because he does not know any better. But by saying that he knows his master is a hard man, his knowledge makes him unable to plead innocence of his master’s character.

Even if it is true that the master is a hard man, as the 3rd servant puts it, the master has every right to be hard. Because after all, he IS the master!

The fault lies with the 3rd servant for his lack of accountability. The keyword here is accountability. God rewards a servant based on the faithfulness he shows on the things entrusted to him, not on the size of the responsibility. God’s favor lies with the servant who shows a sense of accountability as a steward, who is faithfully responsible for the things entrusted to him.

As for the 3rd hint of injustice, the master’s aim was not to make the rich, richer and the poor, poorer. In fact, the master was merely doing the most logical thing any reasonable master would do. He took the 1 talent from the 3rd servant and gave it to the 1st servant who has 10 talents, because the 1st servant has proven himself to be “faithful over a few things”. Therefore, it is only deserving of the 1st master to be made “ruler over many things”.

Case closed. God is still a “God of faithfulness, without injustice. Good and upright is He.”