I have a friend who tortures the rest of us with his puns. When reading through a long essay that he has posted on Facebook, you are always alert, waiting for the inevitable facepalming pun, that reverses the whole meaning of the story.

I have the same trepidation when reading parables. Like puns, parables have other meanings that subvert a superficial reading of the text. When reading parables, I’m alert wanting to be ready for the inevitable subversion beyond the initial reading.

The trepidation in reading parables reaches its climax in Matthew 25. A quick superficial reading leaves the parables as moral tales, but will a closer reading of Matthew 25, reveal a “pun” another meaning?

The view that Jesus is a spiritual teacher of divine wisdom and that the parables are spiritual sermons is challenged by the political nature of his death and the prophetic subversity with which Jesus challenged the status. The trial and execution of Jesus as an agitator shows that Jesus was a threat to the political and economic interests of the Jewish elite who collaborated with Roman powers to crucify Jesus. Thus, the political and subversive effects of Jesus ministry prevent an overly spiritualised interpretation and force us to consider political and economic understandings. For example, ¨traditional¨ interpretations have described the parable of the talents as being ¨spiritual gifts¨ and not money. The virgins that run out of oil are explained as people who do not prioritise prayer. The five virgins who refuse to share their oil with those who do not have, cannot be justified in the light of Christ's actions and his stories of sharing, for example the feeding of the five thousand and the last supper where his body and blood are “shared”.

The man going on a journey (v14) implies an absent God, if this is assumed to be the God figure. This view of an absent God is exacerbated by the third slave´s interpretation of him as harsh: “I know that you are a harsh man.” The nobleman does not refute this but agrees with the assessment: “you know that I am a harsh man”. In contrast Jesus emphasises the love of God, as do the New Testament writers that follow his teachings: “God is love and those who dwell in love dwell in God” (See 1 John). Matthew 25 is not three separate parables with three separate meanings. A close examination of the Greek text will refute this. Each of the parables is connected to the other with the words hoster gar. My argument is that Matthew 25 should be understood as one parable with three chapters.

If the reader agrees that Matthew 25 represents not three but one parable, then the following argument may be considered:

In Biblical exegesis, when there are three aspects of a text, attention is often drawn to the middle section. In other words the middle ¨chapter¨ of Matthew 25 is the key. The first ¨chapter¨ prepares the reader for the second ¨chapter¨ while the third ¨chapter¨ vindicated the actions of the second ¨chapter¨.  In the light of this argument, the message of the first ¨chapter¨ is to be awake for a new insight which comes in chapter two.

In chapter two the nobleman is not the God figure but an absentee lord who bleeds the land dry even in his absence. Greed is such a drive for him that even in his absence he expects his assets to yield a return. This interpretation is offered in the light of sociological background. Only the wealthy could ¨travel abroad.¨ The nobleman´s wealth was because of injustice. The synoptic Gospels refer to those who join field to field leaving many vulnerable, economically deprived and in debt. In Matthew 24 Jesus offers a similar critique against the temple wealth. The initial hearers of this parable would have resented the nobleman who goes away for a long time, he represents the cause of their economic suffering. This is made clear in Luke’s telling of the Parable which is a direct reference to King Herod: In Luke 19.11 – 27 the image of the noble man is Herod:

12So (Jesus) said, ‘A nobleman went to a distant country to get royal power for himself and then return. 13He summoned ten of his slaves, and gave them ten pounds,* and said to them, “Do business with these until I come back.” 14But the citizens of his country hated him and sent a delegation after him, saying, “We do not want this man to rule over us.” 15When he returned, having received royal power, he ordered these slaves, to whom he had given the money, to be summoned so that he might find out what they had gained by trading.

On his return the first two slaves are welcomed into the oppressive paradigm of the nobleman hence he congratulates them. The third slave speaks truth to power and criticises the harsh man who reaps where he does not sow. The nobleman agrees with this interpretation and throws him out into outer darkness. In other interpretations, writers have considered this an image of hell. It is not. It represents the Gospel ideal of solidarity with the oppressed. The outer darkness is to be with those who suffer, who are hungry, naked and in prison. To be in outer darkness is to stand outside the oppressive paradigm. This opinion is confirmed by the third chapter of the parable where those who stood in solidarity with the oppressed are seen to be living the Jesus ideal; in other words feeding the hungry, visiting those in prison and clothing the naked. 

Crudely put, the interpretation of this parable is that the parable is not a story about heaven but rather a story about earth and how we design our economic and political systems in a way that is consistent or inconsistent with the Jesus event.   If you agree with the decoding of Matthew 25 as argued here, we are then equipped with relevant tools with which to understand systems of oppression which is the first step in dismantling them. Some examples include

1)   Criticising exploitive financial services who ¨reap where they do not sow¨ and take advantage of the poor especially.

2)   Criticising corporate institutions who are able to manipulate the markets to their excessive financial gain but to the impoverishment of many. A recent example may be the events that led directly to the Global Financial Crisis.

3)   Exploring ways in which we too can be cast into outer darkness and how solidarity with the poor (the hungry, the naked and those in prison) can take shape.

4)   Baptism for us means being this third slave, the one who speaks truth to power and is cast out into outer darkness to love the poor, the rejected, the hungry, and those who live outside the systems of power.