Parable of the Talents

Hi AMC. I could give you my take on it (it basically concerns stewardship, and the using of the gifts we've been given), but I think I'd rather point you to another site that you might find helpful--the Blue Letter Bible. I enjoy this one, because next to each verse in the passage is a group of icons you can click (representing Bible dictionaries, commentaries, and other helpful resources) to help you consult greater theological heads than mine in trying to decipher what more obscure passages might mean. If you click on that link, it'll take you to the Matthew 25 chapter. Then, go to a verse that stymies you (say, v. 26), and click on "L" and up will pop a window giving you a long, long list of commentaries to choose from. My favorites are Jamieson, Faussett & Brown, and also Adam Clarke (for thoroughness) and Matthew Henry (for devotional inspiration and application).

ETA: I'm not sure if Adam Clarke's commentary is available on that site, but it can be found on this one.

And one more terrific resource: this sermon by bible.org's Bob Deffinbaugh (well-known pastor/teacher/expositor in the Dallas area)

I also wondered about risk and return. Obviously, to get a return on the talents, the servants had to invest them; and that entailed taking a risk. As it happened, it worked out. What if it hadn't?

Would the story have looked like this:

15To 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. 16The man who had received the five talents went at once and invested it but the ship carrying his trade goods sank and so the money was lost. 17So also, the one with the two talents lost one of them by putting it in a bank that failed. 18But the man who had received the one talent went off, dug a hole in the ground and hid his master's money.

19"After a long time the master of those servants returned and settled accounts with them. 20The man who had received the five talents said, 'Master,' he said, 'you entrusted me with five talents. I made a promising investment but I lost it all.'

26"His master replied, 'You wicked, lazy servant! You should have put my money on deposit with the bankers, so that when I returned I would have received it back with interest.

22"The man with the two talents also came. 'Master,' he said, 'you entrusted me with two talents; see, I have only half because the bank I put it in failed.'

26"His master replied, 'You wicked, lazy servant! You should have kept my money safe, so that when I returned I would have received it back again.

24"Then the man who had received the one talent came. 'Master,' he said, 'I was afraid of taking risk and went out and hid your talent in the ground. See, here is what belongs to you.'

21"His master replied, 'Well done, good and faithful servant! You have been faithful with a few things; I will put you in charge of many things. Of the eight talents I had before, only this one is left to me.'

And on to the moral, whatever it might be.

Our pastor did his sermon on this a while back---- he compared it with having what we call talent now, and not using it for Christ. As if you were a singer with a great voice and didn't use it to sing His glory. A writer who didn't write for His kingdom or to help others find it. That would be like burying the Biblical "talent' in the ground instead of cultivating it. It made a lot of sense that way.

Before I heard this, I thought the servant who protected the money had done the right thing and wasn't sure why the master would be mad. But when you think of it as talent in the modern sense, it works.

Rest easy, AMC. It's not about capitalism at all.
It is about using what God has given us in the way that He wants us to.
Personally, my take on it has always been that the servant with only one
talent was merely making excuses as to why he hid what he had, rather
than use it.
Of course, I have at times done the same.

AMCrenshaw said:

Your take is what interests me. Clarke's take is simple, superficial, and obvious.

This parable has got to be about something other than God. When is God (or Jesus for that matter) in the New Testament depicted as someone who reaps where he does not sow? Why does Jesus give so much narrative weight to the last speaker and not the one who uses his gifts most "profitably"? How does this mix with Jesus' message to give unto Caesar what is Caesar's (like the "talent", for example)?

amc

Click to expand...

Well, I confess that one reason I didn't offer my take is that this is a complex passage with several 'valid' observations to consider, and I didn't want you just considering my own, but consulting multiple sources. Also, due to its complexity, there is much to be noticed and said about the passage--and at the time I posted, I was caught up in RL commitments.

I agree with others here who've offered that this is about stewardship; God's expectations concerning what we do with what we've been given (gifts, talents, resources). I think this passage is not only concerning His expectations concerning Christians, but also His expectations concerning each and every human, as He is the giver of gifts to all people, and all were created for His glory. One thing that stands out to me about this passage is the fact that the one person who did not invest his gift in any way worthwhile was also the 'servant' who shows us by what he says about God (the Master) that he doesn't really know the Master at all. Note what he says about Him:

24"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. 25So I was afraid and went out and hid your talent in the ground. See, here is what belongs to you.'

If the master represents God, is this true? Is God a harsh master ("hard man") with unrealistic, unloving expectations of us, capricious and worthy only of our distrust and fear?

I think not.

This servant didn't use his gifts and talents for the master because someone who doesn't know the Master cannot effectively serve the Master with those gifts and talents, and the gifts/talents entrusted to him then cannot bear fruit for that Master. The whole of Matthew 25 (it always helps to look at complex passages in context)--the parable of the virgins and lamp oil before this one, and the parable of the sheep and goats after this one, concerns this--those who know the Master, and those who don't. In the first parable (virgins and oil and oil lamps), it ends with the Bridegroom (another name for God) saying to the virgins who were not 'ready' and expecting His return:

12"But he replied, 'I tell you the truth, I don't know you.'

Similarly, in this second parable that follows, it shows us that the servant did not know the Master. Notice the Master's tongue-in-cheek response to the servant, quoting back to him the derogatory (and false) assessment the servant had given him...this, to me, is God's pronouncement of the main cause of his lack of effective servanthood--and his subsequent banishment. The servant simply did not know the Master.

The Master's response reminds me of the response in the third illustration in this chapter, concerning end times with the separating of the sheep and the goats; Jesus says He'll tell some who thought they served Him and loved Him, "Depart from Me, for I never knew you." Like those goats, and like those unprepared virgins, the 'wicked' servant may have thought he was doing an okay thing, but because he had no true knowledge of the Master, his actions were not the right ones, and could not ultimately serve Him...they served something else (his fear, in this case, and his erroneous opinion about the Master).

So to sum up, I think the whole chapter is Jesus talking about effective human response to the Master (expectant service), but that that service must be grounded first of all in knowing Him:

--the virgins who knew Him believed His promise of return and acted on it, by being prepared with plenty of oil

--the servants who knew Him were not afraid of Him, and could confidently use their gifts/talents to bear fruit in His service

--the sheep who knew Him could serve Him by their actions; they alone knew that the Master could be served by serving 'the least of these'--something the goats did not do

Keyan said:

I also wondered about risk and return. Obviously, to get a return on the talents, the servants had to invest them; and that entailed taking a risk. As it happened, it worked out. What if it hadn't?

Click to expand...

Keyan, I think that might also be a part of knowing the Master; while we might operate in fear and trembling concerning 'risk' in investing our lives for the Master, the more we know Him, the more we know there is no risk for a life invested for His glory. If we know Him, we will love and obey Him; if we do His will, He will be glorified by our lives (no matter what the sum human measurement of our accomplishments--notice the equal praise for the one with many talents and returns, and the one with fewer)--because His will is His glory (and simultaneously our ultimate blessing).

Pat~ said:

-notice the equal praise for the one with many talents and returns, and the one with fewer)
.

Click to expand...

Well, yes, he should do. They both made a 100% return.

The guy with the two talents did exactly as well as the guy with five.

The man going on a journey had money, and had servants. He already had some idea of the abilities of his servants, for he distributed his money to them in different amounts "in accordance with his abilities". Five, two, and one talents of money. To understand it better, change ‘talent’ to ‘thousand dollars'. He put one in charge of 5000 dollars, a second 2000 dollars, a third 1000 dollars. We don’t know what instructions the servants were given. Was the money for the purpose of safekeeping, or for investment? Were these men menial servants—of the household or fields—or were they essentially managers of the master’s business? The context suggests the latter, for in the end the master judged them on their business acumen and activities, not on their aversion to risk.

The one given 5000 dollars must have had significant success in the past with business management; the one with 2000 less so; the one with 1000 less so again. What was the 1K guy’s problem? Aversion to risk? Fear of failure? Laziness? We don’t really know, but the latter appears to have been under evaluation, perhaps more so than the other two (which could explain the amount of the narrative given to the latter).

As it turned out, the 1K guy lived up down to his reputation. Rather than saying, ‘Ah ah! The boss has given me another chance to perform. Let me see what I can do with his money,’ he feared the boss and did nothing other than protect the money from thieves. He was hopelessly out of place as a business manager, and probably needed to be the assistant of one of the other servants (at best) or a menial servant (more likely). He was being tested, and he failed the test.

So the boss said he could no longer be a manager of business affairs. The 1000 dollars was taken from him—a good business decision—and given to someone who, when under testing, had shown himself to be a good business manager. So the servant described as lazy and wicked is about to be reassigned to a more appropriate role, or simply fired.

The statement, “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” seems to be something that had more meaning, or perhaps a different meaning, in the context that Jesus said it. I’m not sure it is an endorsement of extreme capitalism, but rather a recognition of how the world works. Sometimes the one who had very little has very little because of lack of ability. Sometimes it is due to lack of opportunity. Sometimes it is due to oppression. On occasion it is due to mere circumstances, such as sickness or loss of income. I believe Jesus is saying the world will take away from the poor person what little he has. The poor or weak person becomes prey for the wealthy and powerful. That Jesus says this through his character in the parable is hardly an endorsement of the practice. It is a mere statement of facts.

I believe that the use of the word ‘talent’ to describe ‘money’ throws us off in interpreting this parable. However, I always look at any Bible passage for the broadest possible application for my life. What does it say to me specifically in the narrow interpretation of the words, and how should I change my behavior and order my life accordingly? And what does it say to me about parallel areas in the broader sense of the words, and how should I change my behavior and order my life accordingly? In that vein, this parable can be applied to many areas of life. Talent in our modern meaning was already mentioned up-thread. Besides talent in the arts, this could apply to talent/abilities in any business we pursue: ability in math, science, social sciences, manual labor, etc. This parable calls us to do excellent work in any endeavor we find ourselves, even if it is something somewhat beyond our normal range of abilities. The 1K guy was in a position beyond his abilities; rather than deal with it with energy and effort and do the best he could, he went the lazy route. That’s my take.

No parable is perfect in its metaphors or wording. Almost all metaphors break down at some point, because situation A, the real thing, and situation B, the metaphor for the real thing, are not equal. They are similar in certain aspects, but they aren’t equal. So if we try to carry parables (i.e. metaphors) beyond their intended comparison or teaching, they break down, and we then try to negate the aptness of the metaphor. While I try to apply Bible parables in the broadest possible sense, I also try not to extend them beyond the intended comparison. In that regard, I'm not sure who the master is (God or Caesar), and I'm not sure that's all that important.

Best regards,
NDG

Keyan said:

Well, yes, he should do. They both made a 100% return.

The guy with the two talents did exactly as well as the guy with five.

Click to expand...

Good point, and agreed.

AMCrenshaw said:

If the Master is Caesar, Pat?

Click to expand...

I don't believe the master could be Caesar in this parable, AMC. Again, because of the context in scripture in which it is found; the whole chapter is Jesus' speaking about those who know and believe God and who are structuring their lives accordingly. Nowhere in scripture does Jesus refer to Caesar as our Bridegroom, Master, or Judge (the references in this chapter's parables, which are all successive teaching building upon a like concept). Those terms are all used to describe God. (And see post 16.)

I think that it is one of life's most amazing coincidences that the word "talent" in this parable works so well in either meaning. Then, the tangent we take with '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... makes EVEN MORE SENSE. We are to use talents as expertly as we can, regardless of the chain of events that lead to their availability. I would liken this to the fact that Nazi Germany invented the jet engine. Despite being trapped in a world of obvious moral dilemmas, the engineers developed a product that turned out to be something good the entire world now enjoys...

In reference to the idea that to "everyone who has, will be given more"...I believe that could also be interpreted as a reference to our future use of our gifts/talents in heaven. To the degree that we invest and use those down here on earth, He will entrust us with responsibility in serving Him in heaven, as well. (eg. in Revelation, it makes reference to a hierarchy in heaven, with thrones for the tribulation martyrs and elders who are serving Christ. See Revelation 3:21, 5:10, 11:12. See also Luke 19:17.)

When studying this parable, it's helpful to note the similar one in Luke 12--which also makes clear reference to the Master as Jesus Christ, as He is speaking of His return to earth in this chapter (note the reference to the Son of Man in v.40):

35"Be dressed ready for service and keep your lamps burning, 36like men waiting for their master to return from a wedding banquet, so that when he comes and knocks they can immediately open the door for him. 37It will be good for those servants whose master finds them watching when he comes. I tell you the truth, he will dress himself to serve, will have them recline at the table and will come and wait on them. 38It will be good for those servants whose master finds them ready, even if he comes in the second or third watch of the night. 39But understand this: If the owner of the house had known at what hour the thief was coming, he would not have let his house be broken into. 40You also must be ready, because the Son of Man will come at an hour when you do not expect him."

41Peter asked, "Lord, are you telling this parable to us, or to everyone?"

42The Lord answered, "Who then is the faithful and wise manager, whom the master puts in charge of his servants to give them their food allowance at the proper time? 43It will be good for that servant whom the master finds doing so when he returns. 44I tell you the truth, he will put him in charge of all his possessions. 45But suppose the servant says to himself, 'My master is taking a long time in coming,' and he then begins to beat the menservants and maidservants and to eat and drink and get drunk. 46The master of that servant will come on a day when he does not expect him and at an hour he is not aware of. He will cut him to pieces and assign him a place with the unbelievers.

47"That servant who knows his master's will and does not get ready or does not do what his master wants will be beaten with many blows. 48But the one who does not know and does things deserving punishment will be beaten with few blows. From everyone who has been given much, much will be demanded; and from the one who has been entrusted with much, much more will be asked.

I think, in answer to Peter's question--"are you speaking to us [believers] or everyone?"--I see Jesus' response as rhetorical: well, who IS the believer? It'd be the one whose faith resulted in action, wouldn't it? Notice the servant who didn't believe in the Master's imminent return, beat his servants, and got drunk; he got 'assigned a place with the unbelievers.' That's not heaven. Verses 47-48 are trickier, but I interpret them to mean that those who deliberately reject the Master's will will be judged more harshly at the day of judgment than those who were simply ignorant about it. But I see all of these as 'unbelief' and a warning from Jesus about future judgment concerning that unbelief. Conversely, we're told in the first part that those who believe (as evidenced by their actions) will not be judged at all, but only rewarded:

37It will be good for those servants whose master finds them watching when he comes. I tell you the truth, he will dress himself to serve, will have them recline at the table and will come and wait on them. 38It will be good for those servants whose master finds them ready, even if he comes in the second or third watch of the night.

The banquet table is a reference to the 'wedding banquet' in heaven reserved for Christ and His Bride (all true believers in Him). See 2 Corinthians 11:2, Rev. 21:2, Rev. 22:17, and this:

6Then I heard what sounded like a great multitude, like the roar of rushing waters and like loud peals of thunder, shouting:
"Hallelujah!
For our Lord God Almighty reigns.
7Let us rejoice and be glad
and give him glory!
For the wedding of the Lamb has come,
and his bride has made herself ready.
8Fine linen, bright and clean,
was given her to wear." (Fine linen stands for the righteous acts of the saints.)

9Then the angel said to me, "Write: 'Blessed are those who are invited to the wedding supper of the Lamb!' " And he added, "These are the true words of God."

(Revelation 19:6-9)

AMCrenshaw said:

I'd be careful, Pat, not to equate correspondences. Master in two different parts of the Bible could mean two different things. For all I know (and I don't ), Jesus was describing the way Rome works. But Rome isn't the Kingdom of Heaven. I don't buy this "talent" "talent" nonsense. That seems like too sweet of a coincidence. What I mean is that the Kingdom of Heaven is never depicted as favoring those who have. It favors those who don't have. What talents do the cripples, lepers, and blind have in this parable? Does the Kingdom of God really favor the one with the most talents?

What I'm asking for is an honest consideration that the Master in this parable is not Jesus or God.

AMC

Click to expand...

Well, first you asked for my interpretation, and after I pointed you to some commentaries you asked for my take on things again, so I obliged you with my honest consideration--which was that Jesus was the returning Master. Not only because of the almost identical parable in Luke 12 that identifies the master as the returning Son of Man (Christ), but I believe this because of the context in which this parable occurs in Matthew. This parable occurs in Matthew 25--one of 3 parables all concerning future reward or judgment based upon readiness and service. The preceding chapter, Matthew 24, is all about end times. Jesus is talking to his disciples about the future, and about matters of eternal significance concerning His return and their reward for faithful service. It makes no sense at all that after all of Matthew 24, and the virgins/oil parable concerning servant readiness in the beginning of Matthew 25, that He would suddenly digress and talk about Rome or Caesar.

So I guess if you want an honest consideration of that possibility, it won't be coming from my direction; sorry!

Norman D Gutter said:

The man going on a journey had money, and had servants. He already had some idea of the abilities of his servants, for he distributed his money to them in different amounts "in accordance with his abilities". Five, two, and one talents of money. To understand it better, change ‘talent’ to ‘thousand dollars. He put one in charge of 5000 dollars, a second 2000 dollars, a third 1000 dollars. We don’t know what instructions the servants were given. Was the money for the purpose of safekeeping, or for investment? Were these men menial servants—of the household or fields—or were they essentially managers of the master’s business? The context suggests the latter, for in the end the master judged them on their business acumen and activities, not on their aversion to risk.

The one given 5000 dollars must have had significant success in the past with business management; the one with 2000 less so; the one with 1000 less so again. What was the 1K guy’s problem? Aversion to risk? Fear of failure? Laziness? We don’t really know, but the latter appears to have been under evaluation, perhaps more so than the other two (which could explain the amount of the narrative given to the latter).

As it turned out, the 1K guy lived up down to his reputation. Rather than saying, ‘Ah ah! The boss has given me another chance to perform. Let me see what I can do with his money,’ he feared the boss and did nothing other than protect the money from thieves. He was hopelessly out of place as a business manager, and probably needed to be the assistant of one of the other servants (at best) or a menial servant (more likely). He was being tested, and he failed the test.

So the boss said he could no longer be a manager of business affairs. The 1000 dollars was taken from him—a good business decision—and given to someone who, when under testing, had shown himself to be a good business manager. So the servant described as lazy and wicked is about to be reassigned to a more appropriate role, or simply fired.

Click to expand...

That makes a lot more sense.

A rich man divided up his portolio between three fund managers. To the one with the best track record, he gave $5 million to invest; to the next (because he wanted to diversify) he gave $2 million; and to the untried one (because, who knows, he might be the next Warren Buffet), he gave $ 1 million.

After 5 years, the first fund had doubled his money, which was pretty good, and the man was pleased. So had the second fund. Good diversification call. The third fund manager had in fact had stayed in cash. "You call yourself a fund manager?" said the rich man, and he closed the account and shifted the money to the other funds. Clearly the third guy didn't have what it takes to run a fund for high-net-worth individuals, so he looked for a different profession.

Meerkat said:

I think that it is one of life's most amazing coincidences that the word "talent" in this parable works so well in either meaning.

Click to expand...

Well, it isn't a coincidence. The current meaning of talent (special natural ability, aptitude) is etymologially derived from the original meaning (ancient unit of weight or money) largely because of this parable.

AM:

As in many parables, the statement has two meanings--well, at least two meanings, and maybe not limited to two.

As I said in the part you quoted from my former post, I do not believe that Jesus is saying God takes from the poor and gives to the rich.

The talents in the parable refer to money. The one who failed the test had the entrusted money taken from him, and given to another, who who was found faithful in the same sort of job, and the wicked and lazy servant lost his position. As others have said, and as I agreed, I believe the application of this parable is broader than simply money. It can refer to anything God entrusts you with. If you are not found faithful in being a steward of that 'thing'--i.e. ability, non-monetary talent--you may indeed find it taken from you, and God finding something else for you to do.

But, as far as money, wealth, the things of this world, I don't believe Jesus is saying God will make the poor poorer and the rich richer. As I said upthread, some people are poor because they are lazy; some are uneducated or untrained; some have physical problems; some have been oppressed and denied opportunity. The same God who in Isaiah said, "The Spirit of the Sovereign Lord is on me...the Lord has anointed me to preach good news to the poor..to bind up the brokenhearted...proclaim freedom for captives..release for the prisoners...comfort all who mourn" is not, in Matthew's gospel, going to endorse empoverishing the poor. That interpretation does not accord with the vast body of the scripture. So the interpretation left to us, as it relates to the poor, is that the world is the one that further empoverishes the poor, and Jesus is simply saying "That's the way life is."

So two (or more) applications for the talents in the parable, therefore two (or more) valid interpretations to the closing statements.

And, as Pat~ pointed out, the parable should be interpreted in its broader context, which is the coming of the end of the age and faithfulness in that regard, in consideration of the hour and day of the end being unkown and unknowable. The further we take the parable beyond the context in which it was given, the more likely we are to err. Interpret it in a way that makes us better servants of God; that's my rule.

Best regards,
NDG

For me, the message of the parable of the talents is the same as that of Luke 12:38-48, which can be summed up as "to whom much has been given, much will be required".

This makes me ask myself two questions: 1) Am I using the talents I have for His glory? 2) Am I misusing any of my talents at the detriment of His kingdom?

The second question is far scarier. I have (I believe) a certain talent for questioning and seeking alternate interpretations to God's Word. Mostly, I keep these to myself, rarely making them public. My real fear is that in doing so, I might inhibit someone else's walk. It is a talent that God gave me, so I must use it. But I must also use it wisely.