“Again, it will be like a man going on a journey, who called his servants and entrusted his property to them. To one he gave five talents of money, to another two talents, and to another one talent, each according to his ability. Then he went on his journey. The man who had received the five talents went at once and put his money to work and gained five more. So also, the one with the two talents gained two more. But the man who had received the one talent went off, dug a hole in the ground and hid his master’s money. (Gospel according to Matthew, 25, 14-18 )

We are told that the master came back after a long time, and wants to settle accounts with them. The two servants who had received most talents made investments with them and managed to double the amount their master had entrusted them with.

“Then the man who had received the one talent came. ‘Master,’ he said, ‘I knew that you are a hard man, harvesting where you have not sown and gathering where you have not scattered seed. So I was afraid and went out and hid your talent in the ground. See, here is what belongs to you.’
“His master replied, ‘You wicked, lazy servant! So you knew that I harvest where I have not sown and gather where I have not scattered seed? Well then, you should have put my money on deposit with the bankers, so that when I returned I would have received it back with interest.

” ‘Take the talent from him and give it to the one who has the ten talents. For everyone who has will be given more, and he will have an abundance. Whoever does not have, even what he has will be taken from him. And throw that worthless servant outside, into the darkness, where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth.’ (Gospel according to Matthew, 25, 24-28 )

When we read or listen to this parable, we are often troubled, because we can’t help asking what did the poor servant do to deserve such a harsh punishment.
He acted out of fear, according to his own explanation, and he didn’t lose any of his master’s money. He didn’t do anything wrong. So why the punishment?
The point is right this: he didn’t do anything at all. He didn’t do what he might have done, what was in his power to do. And we know that increasing the money was in his power to be done, because his fellow servants managed to do it.
Let’s juxtapose the Parable with this fragment, to shed better light for understanding.

Remember that you are an actor in a play,
which the playwright wills;
if short, short; if long, long;
he may intend you to play a beggar
so that also you might act this naturally;
or a cripple, an official, or a private person.
For this is yours, to play the given role beautifully;
but the selection of it is another’s. (Epictetus)

The playwright and the master are the same character, and the part he assigns to the actor, it’s the talents. One may receive many talents, as the actor may receive the part of an official; but one might also be chosen to play the beggar, that is, to be entrusted with only one talent. The stoic fragment proved to be a great exegetic tool: if we don’t feel like blaming the one-talent servant, then we must also excuse the actor that acts poorly because he got a third-class role. But actually, very few people are ready to forgive an uncommitted actor, because everybody knows that the overall success of a play depends on the single performance of every actor: a great actor surrounded by lousy extras will turn the play into a flop.
Thanks to the comparatio stoica (stoic comparison), we understand that the master’s anger against the last servant is much more opportune than we initially thought. The “lazy servant” did not “do nothing”, but he did not to what would have been “right for him to do” since “in his power”. Doing “right” is not “not doing wrong”, and a great deal of people agrees on that, but this is not enough, because to do right, we must have a clear understanding of what is “in our power”, for then, doing good is doing what is in our power, according to our role in the world, or in society: to avoid turning it all into a messy play.

One of the most distinctive features of stoicism can be fairly resumed by the following lines:

Of existing things some are in our power,
others not in our power.

Those who want to commit themselves to stoic ethics have just to remind themselves about this very straightforward principle. There are things that are up to us, and those which are not. According to stoicism most of the problems we come up with are precisely due to the fact we are not able to mark that difference. There are plenty of examples. Here’s one:

…a lute player when he is singing by himself has no anxiety, but when he enters the theatre, he is anxious even if he has a good voice and plays well on the lute; for he not only wishes to sing well, but also to obtain applause: but this is not in his power (Epictetus, The Discourses, Ch. XIII).

But what if we forgot to do the things in our power while attempting to do the things which are not in our power? That’s the source of uneasiness in life. First of all, we would dismiss our duties, and in doing so we may even harm other people. Besides, since we get involved in such activities which are beyond our power, we wouldn’t even be able to be free. And that is what Epictetus’s quotation reminds us: Do you desire to be a good singer, a good teacher, a good doctor, a good citizen? Care about what is in your power, otherwise you wouldn’t catch it up.

We may find something similar in Jesus’ teachings:

Therefore do not be anxious, saying, ‘What shall we eat?’ or ‘What shall we drink?’ or ‘What shall we wear?’ For the Gentiles seek all these things; and your heavenly Father knows that you need them all. But seek first his kingdom and his righteousness, and all these things shall be yours as well. (According to the Gospel of Matthew, 6.31-34)

What would be “seeking first his kingdom and his righteousness” ? In the light of stoic teaching that becomes clear and plain: do what is in your power, since just in doing that you would be able to be virtuous and truly free.

However, here comes the problem: How would we combine an individualistic attitude towards life, and the simple fact human beings live in society, say, they are social animals, after all? Jesus adds up something worth discussing.
Faith comes to play a key role in Jesus’ teaching. He posits that we should seek to accomplish our duties and “all the things shall be yours as well”. In accomplishing our duties, the whole community will benefit from our acts. That is the faith you are told to bring along with your stoic attitude. It is not by telling other people what they are supposed to do that you accomplish your duty. But it is precisely the other way around: it is by caring about what is in your power that you would project the Kingdom on earth, and take part in it. For your faith is nothing but the faithful belief that you are serving a common good, and being part of a community – a Kingdom – by doing the things which are up to you. Say, you couldn’t rule over the world until you could rule over yourself. As Zeno of Citium preached it:

Man conquers the world by conquering himself

Unfortunately, so many times this very simple statement has been disregarded, even by the Christian Churches.

Our claim to renew and improve our understanding of the Christian Faith with ancient philosophy might sound blasphemous to some. And yet there is nothing blasphemous in it: many think religions as a vacuum sealed universes, but it takes little sensibility to agree that Scriptures have not been faxed or emailed to humans by God, but they were written by (inspired) men living amongst other men, sharing some common cultures.
Christianity is an offspring of Judaism, and from the 4th century B.C. onward it is inappropriate and risky to separate Israel from the Hellenistic framework in which she came to be inserted, which led to a brew of older Semitic culture and fresher philosophical ideas coming from the west, united by a same language: this is not an historical claim, but rather an historical fact. Even Jesus’ contemporaries were aware of this, still they divided themselves into greek-oriented Jews and traditionalist Hebrews, refusing the fact that the Hellenistic syncretism had nearly fulfilled his job in culture, philosophy, administration and even religion.
Augustine discovered this matter with great wonder, when he stated that pagan philosophers had already seized part of the Truth, and that it was Christians’ task to make good use of them to understand obscure verses of the Bible.

They contain also liberal instruction which is better adapted to the use of the truth, and some most excellent precepts of morality; and some truths in regard even to the worship of the One God are found among them.
Now these are, so to speak, their gold and silver, which they did not create themselves, but dug out of the mines of God’s providence which are everywhere scattered abroad. […] These, therefore, the Christian [...] ought to take away from them, and to devote to their proper use in preaching the gospel. Their garments, also,–that is, human institutions such as are adapted to that intercourse with men which is indispensable in this life,–we must take and turn to a Christian use.

De Doctrina Christiana (Book II, Chapter 40)

Source: http://ccat.sas.upenn.edu/jod/augustine/ddc.html

According to Augustine, this was a proof of the universality of God’s inspiriting power, but once we acknowledge the blend of different elements from which Christianity developed, his advice can be taken both by pious people willing to improve their faith (through a better understanding), or simply by curious humans wanting to increase their knowledge discovering unexpected and illuminating correspondences.

Let’s begin with our first parallel we want you to discuss. Here we have two quotations to start with.

“Judge not, and you will not be judged; condemn not, and you will not
be condemned; forgive, and you will be forgiven; give, and it will be
given to you; ….Why do you see the speck that is in your brother’s
eye, but do not notice the log that is in your own eye?”

According to the Gospel of Luke (6.37):

Source: http://www.humanistictexts.org/epictetus.htm

“If a man wash quickly, do not say that he washes badly, but that he
washes quickly. If a man drink much wine, do not say that he drinks
badly, but that he drinks much. For till you have decided what
judgment prompts him, how do you know that he acts badly? If you do
as I say, you will assent to your apprehensive impressions and to none
other.”

Epictetus, Stoic Philosopher

Source: http://www.humanistictexts.org/epictetus.htm