Professional Documents
Culture Documents
The Parable o f the Pounds (Luke 19:1128) will not be found in the Revised
Com m on Lectionary cycle o f Gospel
readings. The most likely reason for this
is its narrative similarity with Matthews
Parable o f the Talents. But as sometimes
happens, Bible readers interpret synoptic
passages through the lens o f the Gospel o f
Matthew, a bias attributed to its priority
in the canonical sequence. In this article,
I aim to call attention to what the author
o f Luke is doing overall in his critique
o f wealth and consumption through the
Parable o f the Pounds separated from the
lens o f the Parable o f the Talents.
Removing the
Matthean Lens
How many slaves were there? How many
coins did they begin with and what was
their rate o f return on their investment?
What happens to the lazy slave in the
end? Most would answer these questions
remembering the version told in the Parable o f the Talents (Matt 25:14-30).
A master goes away and gives money
to three servants: five talents to the first,
two to the second, and one to the third.
The first and second double the masters
investment, giving back to the master ten
and four talents respectively. The third
buries the talent, and is cast into the
outer darkness where there is weeping
jy)>
[B5] another merely rebuked,
[A] and another cast into prison.3
The structure o f the parable makes clear that
the one who hid the talent was accepted
(with joy). Therefore, we must at least
say that an obvious and parallel possibility
exists to interpret the parable outside the
Matthean lens in a manner that does not
condemn the third slave as guilty. If this is
true, then when the Parable of the Pounds
pits the third slave against the master, this
could likely be a critique o f the master, an
interpretation that is quite contrary to the
Parable o f the Talents. In order to take this
argument further, we must look beyond
the delegation and the complaint, and
examine the Parable o f the Pounds in the
context o f the Lukan narrative.
Or mside o f you.
447
we allegorize it, it is a picture of the workings o f ancient empires, in this case Rome.
When a leader wanted to rule a land, they
traveled to bring gifts to the emperor so they
might be promised stability and assistance.
Josephus recounts such a case:
At the same time also, did Antipas,
another of Herods sons, sail to Rome,
in order to gain the government; being
buoyed up by Salome with promises
that he should take that government;
and that he was a much more honest
and fit man than Archelaus for that authority, since Herod had, in his former
will, deemed him the worthiest to be
made king; which ought to be esteemed
more valid than his latter will.9
Josephus also tells o f a delegation that had
been sent abroad (Antiquities, 14.302)
to oppose an earlier Herod. With Jesus
heading toward Jerusalem, to Pilate and
Herod, and with the two being named
complicit in Jesus death (Acts 4:27), we
are better able to place our nobleman in
his historical context.
The nobleman begins to look more
and more like a tyrant (even compared with
the Talents), thereby making it difficult to
allegorize the nobleman into the cruciform
o f the servantking (22:27), Jesus. The
nobleman who becomes king resembles
the kings o f the Gentiles who exercise
lordship (22:25), while Jesus exhorts his
disciples to serve (22:26) as he has done.
For this reason, Jesus tells this parable to
show that the Divine Dominion will not
appear immediately on account o f such
rulers still in existence.
But it is not only the lording over of
others that makes the nobleman a tyrant,
but also the economic system of exploitation
he perpetuates. Consider, while the slaves
o f Matthew only double their return, the
9.
17:224.
Conclusion
The reading I have offered here is one
that critiques the wealth and power o f
the nobleman. We need not go so far as
to herald the third slave as the hero o f the
story. Still, while the dominant reading
o f the Parable o f the Pounds is one that
calls the third slave lazy, we might ask
questions o f what it means to be lazy. In
our capitalist time where individual labor
production is important, laziness can be
seen as the root o f economic problems.
But laziness must also be seen as a critique
o f power, for certainly if one believed in
the leadership and creeds o f the ones who
shape the economic system, one would
work toward those ends. This is even more
so in an agrarian peasant society (or a slave
society). James Scott, an anthropologist,
has analyzed the foot-dragging practices
o f peasants and their everyday forms o f
resistance. Alan Kirk summarizes:
These stratagems reflect the preoccupation of subsistence producers with
survival; therefore they aim, within
the framework of existing hierarchical
relations, at minimizing expropriation
and securing subsistence. Accordingly
these tactics are marked by retreat from
the threshold of open defiance; in other
words, they tend not to be disruptive
of the public transcript of conformity
and consent. Those engaging in them
disavow, publicly, any intention of
challenging the basic principles of
stratification and authority. Such practices as squatting, poaching, pilfering,
tax and tithe evasion, shoddy, slow,
11.
Alan Kirk, Going Public with
the Hidden Transcript in Q l 1 : Beelzebul
Accusation and the Woes. In Oral
Performance, Popular Tradition, and Hidden
Transcript in Q, edited by Richard A.
Horsley (Atlanta, Ga.: Society o f Biblical
Literature, 2006) 184.