Parable Draft #1

In the Parable of the Talents, Jesus says that in order to end oppression, there must be a joint effort by people of all hierarchal standings to stop the exploiter with all the power. According to Gottwald, the system exploiting the peasant farmers in first century Palestine is called a Tributary Mode of Production, or TMP. A TMP consists of the dominant bearing class (exploited) and the dominant imposing class (exploiters). While the peasants worked hard making produce, the dominant imposing class siphoned off surplus to three different groups: foreign powers, the state, and the elites who own the peasant’s land.1 It is an aristocrat of a household who is an antagonist in the parable. Herzog explains the role of the household and the relationships between the elite aristocrat, the retainers, and the peasants. The household was in charge of harvesting, gathering into storage, redistributing or monetizing, and exporting the wealth of the land. This required the handling of large sums of money, often counted in talents. When the elite would travel on business, he would leave this money in the safekeeping of his most trusted servants, or retainers. The retainers were then under an unspoken agreement, as demonstrated in the parable, that once they doubled the wealth in their charge they could keep the rest earned. This lead to the heavy exploitation of the peasant class. The peasant audience that Jesus tells the parable to knows this about the system and the characters.2

The parable’s meaning is straightforward: the elite rewards the retainers who doubled the talents given while he punishes the one who only returns the original amount of wealth entrusted to him. Herzog says that the retainer’s banishment to the status of a day laborer was not only for failing to exploit the peasants, but also for being a "whistle-blower." The third retainer knew that for calling the aristocrat out on his exploitive and unfair doings, he would have a price to pay. But, by acting alone the retainer fails to change anything and also dies alone. This tells the audience that even the higher class people cannot overthrow oppression by themselves.3

This creates a new question for the peasants. If one of the oppressor’s elite cannot stop exploitation by acting alone, and we the exploited cannot act alone, how can we overcome the system? Herzog answers this question by stating that the peasants’ animosity toward the retainers helps the ruling oppressor. The peasants’ hatred for this class of people is shown when the servant is thrown outside into the darkness. Darkness suggests solitude and no sympathy from the peasant class with whom he now lives. The interests of the peasants are tied to the very class of people whom they are shunning in this parable. What could happen if both classes worked together?4

If the exploited and the exploiters worked together, the person at the top of the pyramid of power would be isolated. The exploiters would no longer contribute power to the system from the oppressed, and the oppressed would not allow the oppressor to punish the rebelling exploiters. Unable to obtain any more power with the death of the circle of exploitation, the oppressor would no longer be able to do harm. By teaching the peasants that they must collaborate with their enemies to end exploitation, Jesus also shows us that today the only way to eliminate problems is to create a joint effort of all parties involved. To overcome the enemy, we must work with the enemy.

Norman K. Gottwald, "Social Class as an Analytic and Hermeneutical Category in Biblical Studies," Journal of Biblical Literature 112:1 (1993), 3-22.
Walter Herzog, Parables as Subversive Speech: Jesus as the Pedagogue of the Oppressed (Louisville: Westminster John Knox Press, 1994), 156-159.
Ibid., 162-167.
Ibid., 167-168.