Meaning of the Parable of the Talents

For context’s sake, I’ve provided the actual passage containing the parable below. Sola Gratia’s answer covers the topic of the master’s identity well, so I won’t say much on that front. I’d like to address your comment about moneylending. The servants themselves were not necessarily lending money. As you put it, their returns depended on how the bank they put their money in fares. The bank most likely lent money to foreigners, as was permitted by Mosaic law. See Deuteronomy 23:19-20 (NASB), for example:

19 “You shall not charge interest to your countrymen: interest on money, food, or anything that may be loaned at interest. 20 You may charge interest to a foreigner, but to your countrymen you shall not charge interest, so that the Lord your God may bless you in all that you undertake in the land which you are about to enter to possess.

While Jews could not charge other Jews interest, they were free to lend to and collect interest from any foreigners. Jews did this then, and it’s what they became known for around the world over time. The master was not punishing the third servant for not sinning, only for being too scared to use the gifts he was given.

—-

14 “For it is just like a man about to go on a journey, who called his own slaves and entrusted his possessions to them. 15 To one he gave five talents, to another, two, and to another, one, each according to his own ability; and he went on his journey. 16 Immediately the one who had received the five talents went and traded with them, and gained five more talents. 17 In the same manner the one who had received the two talents gained two more. 18 But he who received the one talent went away, and dug a hole in the ground and hid his master’s money.
19 “Now after a long time the master of those slaves came and settled accounts with them. 20 The one who had received the five talents came up and brought five more talents, saying, ‘Master, you entrusted five talents to me. See, I have gained five more talents.’ 21 His master said to him, ‘Well done, good and faithful slave. You were faithful with a few things, I will put you in charge of many things; enter into the joy of your master.’ 22 “Also the one who had received the two talents came up and said, ‘Master, you entrusted two talents to me. See, I have gained two more talents.’ 23 His master said to him, ‘Well done, good and faithful slave. You were faithful with a few things, I will put you in charge of many things; enter into the joy of your master.’ 24 “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. 25 And I was afraid, and went away and hid your talent in the ground. See, you have what is yours.’ 26 “But his master answered and said to him, ‘You wicked, lazy slave, you knew that I reap where I did not sow and gather where I scattered no seed. 27 Then you ought to have put my money in the bank, and on my arrival I would have received my money back with interest. 28 Therefore take away the talent from him, and give it to the one who has the ten talents.’ 29 “For to everyone who has, more shall be given, and he will have an abundance; but from the one who does not have, even what he does have shall be taken away. 30 Throw out the worthless slave into the outer darkness; in that place there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth.
—Matthew 25:14-30 NASB

The linked sermon seems to be doing very little serious work with the passage itself and is mainly being used as a pretext for the preacher to express her economic opinions.

The parable of the talents very clearly likens the master to God. As Sola Gratia correctly points out, the parable ends with the servant sent to Hell which would be absurd in the parable if the master is not supposed to be likened to God. The comment about the unlawfulness of moneylending is also a stretch. For one, the commandment was to not be a moneylender to the "my people who are poor" (Exodus 22:25) and probably excluded gentiles and the non-poor engaging in some kind of capital investment. More importantly, parables themselves never map exactly onto God's nature or what is right and wrong. Take for example Luke 16:1-9, where Jesus seems to be approving of a manager's dishonest accounting while short-timing, something clearly sinful. Jesus is not commending the sin, but the shrewdness.

Focusing on what the passage really teaches, it comes immediately after the parable of the Ten Virgins. The point of that parable is to always be ready for the master to return by preparing in advance. The parable of the talents takes a different nuance to the theme: always be ready for your master to return by being diligent with what is entrusted to you. This clearly implies financial stewardship, but it more generally applies to generic "fruit bearing". If you are the holy seed when the gospel rain waters your good soil, bear fruit with it or you will be cast off.

It's absolutely ridiculous to claim the Master isn't God/Jesus as it is in the other parables of the same nature (e.g. Mt 18:23,35; 24:44,46 etc). Not to mention that the wicked and worthless servant goes to Hell. Since interest/money refer to literal money, and the parable isn't talking literally about money but something spiritual (grace, spiritual gifts, skills), interest means Jesus coming back to find the grace given believers to be put to good use (Mt 7:19; Jn 15:1-2,6). That is, the spiritual gifts given the believer should return intact, and even more adundant, since they should convert more people, show good example, bring more people to Christ etc.