The Parable of the Talents: A Closer Look

“Christian economics” and “Christian financial counsel” have been very popular pursuits over the years. While many things are said by these economists and counselors, I have found that a common theme is to draw upon the parable of the talents (Matthew 25:14–30) as justification for the practice of usury, known in modern times as interest taking. The modern usurer is said to be a “good steward” of God’s gifts.

Why does usury require justification? For 1,500 years, from the beginning in the first century up to the fifteenth century, the church stood unanimously opposed to the practice. Numerous church councils condemned it. Then there came those who argued that usury may not be so universally condemned—that there may be some circumstances in which it is allowed. Christians who wished to practice usury searched the Bible for something that would justify it and show that the church was wrong all those 1,500 years. They thought they found what they were looking for in the parable of the talents.

Most Christians who are concerned with financial matters know this parable. (If you are among those who do not know it, take a minute to read it and then come back here.) The master entrusted three slaves with various amounts of “talents.” A talent was a quantity of silver, or money. The key text is in verse 27, where the master says to the wicked and lazy slave, “Then you ought to have put my money in the bank, and on my arrival I would have received my money back with interest” (NASB 1995). Here, many modern Christians read the master (in the persona of Jesus) as saying that usury is approved and ought to have been done in this scenario.

But what is overlooked in this kind of reading is the first word in the statement: then. What follows after it is a conditional statement. That is, it is conditioned upon what comes before it. It is in the form of “If this, then that.” We know what the “that” is: The slave ought to have put the money in the bank. So then, what is the “this”? What comes before the “then” so that what follows is a firm conclusion? What comes before is the slave’s statement in verses 24–25 (NASB 1995):

And the one also who had received the one talent came up and said, “Master, I knew you to be a hard man, reaping where you did not sow and gathering where you scattered no seed. And I was afraid, and went away and hid your talent in the ground. See, you have what is yours.”

Is what the slave said true? Does the master really reap where he has not sown and gather where he has scattered no seed? What is described here is stealing. Is the master really a thief? No, he is not. Thus, the master labels this slave as wicked and lazy. The slave’s statement is false. If the “this” is false, then what comes after “then” cannot be upheld. The master tells the wicked and lazy slave, to paraphrase, “If this is what you thought of me, then that is what you should have done.” Usury is theft, just as is reaping where one did not sow.

I think it is also important to notice that this parable does not include any real financial teaching. Financial teaching is not the point of the parable. The point is an exhortation to use what God has given us and to be faithful in His service. For example, concerning this parable, John Calvin said, “For Christ did not intend to describe such rigor, any more than to applaud usury.... Christ only means that there will be no excuse for the indolence of those who both conceal the gifts of God, and waste their time in idleness” (Calvin’s Commentaries on Matthew 25). Also, consider that the master called the other two slaves “good and faithful” (vv. 21, 23) because they traded with the money and gained more money (vv. 16–17). The only ones in this parable who can be described as “good stewards” are those who traded with the money.

The conclusion, then?

Gain via trade is good stewardship; gain via usury is theft.