Commentary on Matthew 25:14-30

This week’s reading from Matthew is the second of the eschatological parables,¹ in which three slaves receive responsibility for their master’s finances while he is away.² The repetitive account of the master’s encounter with each slave can nearly lull hearers to sleep when the story is read in worship. Yet the parallel structures are intended to highlight the differences between the exchanges between the master and the first two slaves and the final exchange with the third slave (verses 24–30). This signals that the exchange with the slave who was assigned one talent is the parable’s primary point of focus.

Like the parable of the 10 wedding attendants that served as last week’s Gospel lection (25:1–13), this one functions allegorically. While the master clearly represents Jesus, however, we should resist looking for allegory in too many of the details of the scene. In verse 24, the final slave calls the master a hard man who reaps where he has not sown—in other words, he accuses the master of acting unjustly. The twist in the parable (parables characteristically contain strange elements) is that the master does not deny the accusation (verse 26).

Thus, the master’s departure, delayed return, and eventual accounting with his slaves symbolize the dynamic of eschatological experience Matthew wants his readers to understand in the metaphorical promise of the delayed parousia. The master’s character, however, is not intended to provide a lens into Jesus’s character.

As with last week’s parable, this allegory divides the slaves to represent two groups Matthew sees within his church—those who are good and faithful (verses 21, 23) and the one who is lazy and wicked (verse 26). Unlike the wise and foolish bridesmaids, however, the groups are uneven: Two slaves are faithful, and one is not. This matters homiletically because the master assigns the amount of talents to each slave according to that slave’s ability (verse 15). The parable thus portrays a majority of the church as faithful and ready. So, while we should follow the parable in asking the whole congregation to focus on the final slave in order to avoid becoming him, we should be careful not to characterize the church as a whole as “worthless” (verse 30).

For Matthew, then, the parables in the Eschatological Discourse concern faithful responsibility within the already/not yet that characterizes Christian eschatological existence. Because the master entrusts different amounts to different slaves, we should not assume that every member of the church must carry an equal load of responsibility to be considered faithful. The slave who doubles two talents is judged to be just as good and faithful as the one who doubles five (note the parallel wording in verses 21, 23). Indeed, even the slave given only one talent could have proved faithful by earning a little interest on what had been entrusted to him (verse 27).

The question the parable asks us is not “Have you carried as much of the load as the person sitting next to you?” but “Have you carried out your responsibility in a manner appropriate to your abilities and situation?”

Matthew’s eschatological language also reverses familiar “left behind” assumptions. The one condemned in the story is not left behind while the others are taken away to salvation; he is cast into outer darkness. The responsible slaves are the ones “left behind,” and their faithfulness brings still more responsibility (verses 21b, 23b, 28).

Verse 29, the climax of the parable, summarizes this point but is often misunderstood through a kind of prosperity gospel. It refers to responsibility, not to gifts or property. The text does not depict the master giving talents as presents or rewards; rather, he assigns responsibility for his talents in the slaves’ hands. The line is best read as meaning “For to all those who have [acted responsibly], more [responsibility] will be given, and they will have an abundance [of responsibility]; but from those who have [not acted responsibly], even what [little responsibility] they have will be taken away.” For Matthew, the ethical Christian life is not a test for which we are rewarded. The ethical life is the reward. The more we live it, the more of it we get.

Notes

1. For a summary of Matthew’s approach to who is “left behind,” see last week’s commentary on Matthew 25:1–13.
2. This essay is adapted from the interpretation I present in Matthew, Fortress Biblical Preaching Commentaries (Fortress, 2013).