THE PARABLE OF THE TALENTS IN MATTHEW 25:14–30

BY ESAYAS EMENE ENICHA (REV.)

parable belongs to the first century; thus, there is a huge time gap between the parable and the congregations. Hence, I thought that there could be hindrances to understanding and practicing the parable appropriately in the congregations of SWS in terms of master-slave relations.

In the historical context of the text, the lordship of the master is expressed in the way that the master administers from highly professional servants to less skilled ones. Though the slave- master relationship needs the loyalty of the servant to his master, the power of the master is based on the legality and acknowledged authority, as the exegesis about the master (ὁ κύριος, o kyrios) implies. Furthermore, the kindness of the master is expressed in the parable by his entrusting of property, leaving home on a journey to do the business, and by the rewards that the master gave to the productive servants on his return.

Historically, the slavery system is well-known to the congregations in the SWS, but the master- slave relationship of the congregations’ historical context does not fit to the historical setting of the text. In the historical setting of the congregations, the master has always been against the servants, as I indicated under the exegesis on Matt. 25:14 (1 Tim. 6:1; Titus 2:9). Thus, the master was perceived as severe, harsh, as someone who owns the slave and the property for himself. There was no incentive for the productive slave. 274

Therefore, the Parable of the Talents in Matthew 25:14-30 needs to be interpreted from its historical setting in order to authenticate its message to the congregations in the SWS. One must realize that the severe and cruel slavery system of the congregations’ setting is not comparable to the setting of the parable. Hence, based on the understanding of the parable in its historical setting, the congregations should be taught that the slavery system of their own context needs to be corrected, and the need for social transformation could also be emphasized as an integral part of salvation; otherwise, it is difficult to symbolize the master with Jesus and the servants with the disciples in the historical setting of the congregations.

As indicated in chapter four, when the missionaries introduced the gospel, they could not teach or correct the masters who became Christians to make their slaves free and to stop harsh treatment and discrimination. And also, this was not taken as an important part of salvation. But the masters who believed in Christ continued to be harsh and to disrespect their servants. Though the formal slavery system has been denounced from the country since 1942, those believers who were born from the master families still continue to discriminate and isolate those believers who had their background in slave families. 275 This problem has brought social and spiritual crises in the congregations and has even caused a split within one of the congregations in Arba Minch. 276

Thus, in terms of master-servant relationship, the understanding and practice of the parable has been difficult in the context of the congregations. Because, as I tried to clarify above, the master who is depicted in the parable gave freedom to his servants to do their business, and when he returned, rewarded the productive servants by giving more; he appears positively. As I noted in chapter two, in the first century, slaves in the Roman Empire could earn wages and bonuses and could acquire property for working on their master’s property. Thus, in the Parable of the Talents, the master allegorically implies the loving gracious Lord Jesus Christ. Likewise, the servants symbolically refer to the disciples. But for applying this parable to the congregations in the SWS, an appropriate interpretation in this respect is needed.

5.2.2. THE IMPORTANCE OF UNDERSTANDING THE MONETARY VALUE OF THE TALENTS

In the sections about parallel texts and about the social and cultural setting of the parable (chapter two) and in the exegesis of Matt. 25:15 (chapter three), the issue of the monetary value of the talent in its historical setting was discussed. Literally, the talent was not a coin but a unit of monetary reckoning, and when used for money, it refers to either gold or silver. Hence, one talent valued analogously to $800,000 in today’s money. Based on this understanding, all the gifts (five, two, and one talent) were a considerable amount of money to engage in a business.

However, in the empirical analysis (chapter four), the talents’ monetary value could not be explained, except suggesting that it is money and that it appears as one of the possible gifts of God. For the congregations in the SWS this suggestion is fair, because the talent is not historically known to the congregations in the SWS. Consequently, not knowing the historical monetary value of the talent leads the readers to misinterpret the