Objective of this lesson: to stress that knowing the nature/character of God means accepting the responsibility to try.
As in the last lesson, the parable was set in their real world context of a owner-slave relationship. Obviously, those who heard the parable were quite familiar with an owner-slave relationship. Obviously, those hearing Jesus' parable would recognize the point [points] of the teaching immediately. The fact that owners of slaves existed neither make them reactionary nor uncomfortable. The fact that slavery existed neither makes them reactionary nor uncomfortable. The fact that slaves were expected to assume responsibility neither makes them reactionary nor uncomfortable. These were common circumstances mentioned by Jesus, common realities. The point of the teaching is not concerned with the legitimacy of the existence of slavery or the slavery institution. The point was focused on the realities of responsibility.
Do not get distracted by 21st century ethical discussions concerning slavery. Focus on Jesus' point in the parable: serving God means accepting responsibility and trying.
The owner of some slaves prepared to take a journey. At that time, a journey was an uncertain undertaking. People taking journeys did not have the convenience and advantages of our 21st century technology in the world of travel--no computers, no communication with business or home, no "portable offices." The process of travel involved accepted uncertainties. Arrival and departure dates were more a matter of intent than a matter of definiteness. Thieves were too common. Travelers were often at the mercy of personal health issues and weather issues. One often traveled not knowing when he/she would get back or [depending on the destination] if he/she would get back. Whereas we are accustomed to traveling with certainty, they were accustomed to traveling with uncertainty.
Stress the fact that travel in that world and time was uncertain. Discuss some of the uncertainties. Focus on this enough to create the accurate understanding that the owner was acting responsibly. What he did was not unusual for then. We often do the same thing when we arrange for someone to have power of attorney [to act in our behalf] if we are in unusual circumstances.
When a wealthy person traveled, he exercised responsibility when he placed a trusted person or several trusted persons in charge of his financial affairs. It would have been foolish to take all his wealth with him. Most of his business affairs were centered in what we recognize as local matters. Much of a person's business affairs had to do with buying and selling in local markets.
Whereas our investments may be national or international [take the concepts of stock markets as an example], most of their financial affairs had to do with local opportunities.
A talent was not an ability but a large sum of money. The talent was worth about 6,000 days wages or almost 16 1/2 years' wages. Note the owner placed three trusted slaves in charge of his finances. Note he expected of each slave only what the slave was capable of doing--the division of his wealth was based on each slave's ability to manage the sum entrusted to him. To one slave the owner committed the sum of 82 years' wages! [Five talents] To one slave he committed the sum of almost 33 years wages! [Two talents] To one slave he committed the sum of over 16 years' wages! [One talent] Even with the one talent slave, the owner committed a huge sum of money. All three of these men were genuinely trusted. The owner felt confident that the slaves knew him and would care for his interests. Yet, no one was expected to function on levels that exceeded his ability.
Stress the fact that a talent was a sum of money, not an ability. The parable is not primarily about abilities, but about being responsible with what God entrusts to us. While that certainly includes ability, it is not limited just to ability.
The slaves to whom five and two talents were intrusted went to work immediately and doubled the owner's money in his absence. However, the slave who received the single talent hid the talent in the ground so he could return to the owner precisely what was committed to his keeping. In our words, he "played it safe." He was not putting his owner's money at risk! His owner would not suffer loss because of his mistakes or bad decisions!
Contrast the reactions of the slaves to the sum of money the owner committed to their trust.
The owner was gone for a long time, but eventually returned. The slave entrusted with 82 years' of wages returned to the owner 164 years' wages--quite a profit! The slave entrusted with almost 33 years' wages returned to the owner about 66 years' wages--a significant profit! The owner was equally please with both slaves. Thrilled, he entrusted both slaves with even more and invited them to enjoy life in the same manner he did.
Note and stress the owner's reaction to the responsible work of the slave entrusted with five talents and the slave entrusted with the two talents. Note the owner's reaction to both was equal with true joy for the trustworthiness and work of each. Stress the owner knew how to reward!
The slave entrusted with 16 years' wages presented the owner with exactly what the owner intrusted him. The slave said he knew what kind of man the owner was. He was a "hard man" who constantly expected something for nothing. Because the slave held this view of the owner, the slave's actions were determined by his fear of the master. He explained he had "played it safe" by hiding the money. He literally returned to the owner precisely what the owner gave him. The owner gained nothing, but neither did the owner lose anything. The owner received back what was his when he left on his journey.
Note the owner expected the slaves to manage matters in his best interest. The two productive slaves managed their trusts in the owner's interest. The fearful slave managed his trust in his owe interest. His primary concern was about self-protection, not about the owner.
Carefully note the owner's reaction. The owner knew how to trust; he had done that. The owner knew how to bless; he had done that. The owner knew how to share the joy; he had done that. The owner knew how to reward; he had done that. The owner also knew how to be angry. He called this slave wicked and lazy. [Not trying, making no effort, "playing it safe" was wicked and lazy!] The owner was incensed at this slave's view of him. [Yes, it is important to have a proper view of God's nature and character!] He declared the slave made a stupid decision. The slave could have and should have at least invested this large sum of money in safe keeping were it would have earned interest.
Stress the owner's reaction to this slave. Note the owner lost nothing. Note the owner was not focused on "not losing'" but on his slave responsibly acting in his best interest. The issue is being responsible, not greed.
The owner stripped the wicked, lazy slave of the money and gave it to the oversight of the slave with the ten talents. He then committed the wicked, lazy slave to a place to live in total darkness as he endured enormous suffering and grief.
Note the owner's reaction to the self-protecting [fear-centered], irresponsible slave.
The parable contains this statement in its conclusion: to the responsible person, more responsibility will be given. [In responsibility there is opportunity.] The irresponsible person will have nothing.
Stress the point sentence of the parable. Responsibility tries! Effort, not inactivity, is rewarded.
God does not expect from us the impossible, but God does expect us to try. The slave was not wicked and lazy because he was entrusted with less than the other two slaves. He was wicked and lazy because he did nothing, because he did not try.
God does not expect of us what we cannot do, but He does expect us to try within the boundaries of our abilities.
For Thought and Discussion
They understood the reality of the owner-slave relationship.
This discussion should include the fact that travel in that time was uncertain.
This discussion should include the fact that a talent was a sum of money, not an ability. The value of a talent would depend on whether it was a copper, silver, or gold talent.
Their abilities determined the amount of responsibility given each slave.
One received five talents, one received two talents, and one received one talent. Each received a huge sum of money! There is no need to feel sorry for the slave who received one talent as though he was in some way deprived or insulted. He was only expected to do what he was capable of doing!
He was overjoyed! He gave each of the two slaves more responsibility and invited them opportunity to enjoy life as did he.
He was extremely displeased! He regarded that slave as wicked and lazy--not because of a comparison made to the other two, but because he did nothing but react to his own fears in a desire for self-preservation rather than seeking the owner's best interest.
God expects us to accept it [as He blesses us] and in accepting it make an effort to serve His best interest.
Link to Student Guide
Lesson 5