What about those you have no talents?

[Eloy Craft]

Here is a kind of reverse take on the parable.


A person is also born in a maternal environment that's either rich or poor in love. Maybe a person lacking in compassion or empathy because love was absent when life was entered. This person was given 2 cents to start out with.
Another person entered into life rich with loving parents and cultured surroundings. This person was given 1 dollar to start out with.

The dollar person looks like a saint next to the 2 cent person.

At the end of life the dollar person has two dollars. Probably preaching on TV.

The 2 cent person has made 10 cents by the time of judgment. This person still looks and acts way less typical Christian and the 2 dollar person seems so sanctified they don't even have to use perfumes or cologne.

The 10 cent person gave God five times what they started with.

The 1 dollar person gave back 2 times what they started with.

Who is more according to man?
Who loved God more?

 

[Ken Rank]

that sounds like a "bank interest" multiplying. The parable has high expectations to increase what you have or be kicked out and by all means don't hide it! I think this is about spreading the gospel and implicit in the text is an expectation to increase two-fold, I think we need to take it more seriously then dropping some money in a plate being passed around. I'm not accusing you of thinking this way but often this is what people mean when they "support" a ministry.

The point of the parable is one thing... the point I addressed which is why I clipped your post as I did was the "what of those with no talents?" I am simply, hopefully politely, correctly a blanket statement that isn't entirely accurate. Everyone has a talent... even if it is using a mop... and it should be used to the betterment of the whole body.

 

[DamianWarS]

The point of the parable is one thing... the point I addressed which is why I clipped your post as I did was the "what of those with no talents?" I am simply, hopefully politely, correctly a blanket statement that isn't entirely accurate. Everyone has a talent... even if it is using a mop... and it should be used to the betterment of the whole body.

appreciate that... the op is click bait to stimulate conversation not to demand that you agree. I welcome positions that disagree with the OP or its language. I agree someone with a mop can be used for the betterment of the whole body but I would push that even further so that what little they have can be used to spread the gospel, even with mop in hand, I think it is less of a corporate call then it is a personal one.

 

[Halbhh]

Mat 25:14-30 is the parable of the talents. It opens saying "[the kingdom of heaven] will be like a man going on a journey, who called his servants and entrusted to them his property....

we know the parable... 3 men are given talents (money), the first 5, the second 2 and the third 1. When the master comes back the servant with 5 now has 10 and the servant with 2 now has 4 to which the response is "Well done, good and faithful servant". The final servant returned exactly what he was given because he hid it away, the master was angered by this and his talent was taken away and he "cast the worthless servant into the outer darkness"

there is a logic to this where some receive lots and some receive little. It is conceivable that perhaps a servant could receive 10, 100, or 1000 talents and with this the parable reveals there is an expectation to multiply that which was given. So we may go up with the logic but can we go down? The lowest servant got 1... are there then some who get 0 and if so what is the expectation upon that servant?

The parable uses some interesting language describing the master as a "hard man" as one who reaps where he has not sown and gathers where he has scattered no seed. One could argue giving talents to his servants to multiply it is a from of sowing but taking away when there was nothing to begin with would certainly agree with this philosophy of reaping and gather where there has been no sowing or scattering.

What is Jesus saying here? Where are the extremes this logic goes to? What about those with no talents?

To get the answer, reading the parable carefully, notice the crucial part of the attitude/belief of the servant that did not do anything with what he was given --

14“Again, it will be like a man going on a journey, who called his servants and entrusted his wealth to them. 15To one he gave five bags of gold, to another two bags, and to another one bag,a each according to his ability. Then he went on his journey. 16The man who had received five bags of gold went at once and put his money to work and gained five bags more. 17So also, the one with two bags of gold gained two more. 18But the man who had received one bag 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 five bags of gold brought the other five. ‘Master,’ he said, ‘you entrusted me with five bags of gold. See, I have gained five more.’

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. Come and share your master’s happiness!’

22“The man with two bags of gold also came. ‘Master,’ he said, ‘you entrusted me with two bags of gold; see, I have gained two more.’

23“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. Come and share your master’s happiness!’

24“Then the man who had received one bag of gold 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 gold in the ground. See, here is what belongs to you.’

26“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? 27Well 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.

28“ ‘So take the bag of gold from him and give it to the one who has ten bags. 29For whoever has will be given more, and they will have an abundance. Whoever does not have, even what they have will be taken from them. 30And throw that worthless servant outside, into the darkness, where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth.’

--------
See that crucial part in verse 24?

That's central, key to what happens here. He was a servant who did not trust Christ.

Think on that a minute. It's huge. It's the opposite of faith in a way, to distrust.

Everyone has some talents, even if they are subtle, because even just only an ability to talk to some people and be kind or loving, for instance, just that alone is already a talent.

Or someone that can only do small repairs, or just do some yard work, and isn't able to do a lot more for others, but could at times use those physical efforts to aid those in need -- that's a talent.

I feel like the Widow's Two Coins is helpful here --

41Jesus sat down opposite the place where the offerings were put and watched the crowd putting their money into the temple treasury. Many rich people threw in large amounts. 42But a poor widow came and put in two very small copper coins, worth only a few cents.

43Calling his disciples to him, Jesus said, “Truly I tell you, this poor widow has put more into the treasury than all the others. 44They all gave out of their wealth; but she, out of her poverty, put in everything—all she had to live on.”

See? It's not how much we have, no. It's whether we really trust and devote what we do have, however little it seems, that matters.

If someone was in a condition where the only thing they could do at all was pray for someone, or only be friendly over the internet and nothing more, even just that, if it's a complete devotion, can be "putting more into the treasury than all the others". While I've gone to the extreme in the example of someone only able to offer a prayer and nothing more, in normal life most will have more than just a narrow window they can act through, and most have chances to do more than just one thing, but even just one thing can be very significant.

 

[DamianWarS]

tal·ent
ˈtalənt/
noun
noun: talent; plural noun: talents

1. natural aptitude or skill.
   "he possesses more talent than any other player"
   synonyms: flair, aptitude, facility, gift, knack, technique, touch, bent, ability, expertise, capacity, faculty; More
   strength, forte, genius, brilliance;
   dexterity, skill, artistry
   "a natural talent for dancing"
   • people possessing talent.
     "I signed all the talent in Rome"
2. a former weight and unit of currency, used especially by the ancient Romans and Greeks.

Jesus' parable is using the word in its second sense. Your question would only be valid in its first sense (if that makes any ¢ents...).

Seems there's a reason why these words are ambiguous:

talent (n.)
late 13c., "inclination, disposition, will, desire," from Old French talent (12c.), from Medieval Latin talenta, plural of talentum "inclination, leaning, will, desire" (11c.), in classical Latin "balance, weight; sum of money," from Greek talanton "a balance, pair of scales," hence "weight, definite weight, anything weighed," and in later times sum of money," from PIE *tele- "to lift, support, weigh," "with derivatives referring to measured weights and thence money and payment"

 

[Wordkeeper]

The master gives the talents to his servants. We know the master is a metaphor for God, since we also know the biblical concept of "mammon" is liken with evil, greed or storing up treasures on earth how do you reconcile this idea that God gives us this mammon, or that we multiply mammon? To me mammon is greed and it is something you take but it is not given but I don't see mammon in this parable.

this serve mammon/serve God is not a contrasted focus on this parable

You can replace “mammon” with “selfish interest “.

The single talent is not mammon, it is the result of mammon. God gives indirectly. He causes rain to fall on both the godly and the ungodly, even what they earn/harvest/hunt down is enabled by the life breath He gives. So both believer and believer are ultimately provided for by God, proof in their being still alive.

The situation of the believer changes after baptism. He has seen God's works in removing the strong chains that convinced him that he needed mammon. His baptism leads to feeding from the Rock, Christ, that shows him that even voluntary laying down of life will not deprive him of life when God is involved. So he has been freed from normal insecurity and even abnormal, self created insecurity. This is going to help him gather, because it will demonstrate to his listeners the viability of taking off the chains of serving self interest. Of course, it’s a hair raising task and it is not given to all to pick up the cross.

The returns are commensurate. Pick up the cross and have a rich ministry, or ask for terms of peace, use your unrighteous mammon to make friends of those with the rewarding ministry, to have benefits of the kingdom by proxy.

Again, with regard to the source of the earthly resource, the text is clear that God is the provider:

Luke 16
11“Therefore if you have not been faithful in the use of unrighteous wealth, who will entrust the true riches to you? 12“And if you have not been faithful in the use of that which is another’s, who will give you that which is your own?

God gave sustenance. Remove sustenance and demonstrate God's sufficiency. It breaks the oppression of Egypt. See Acts 2. If you don't have the gumption, support those who do. Those who are given true riches.

Gather/Scattering also doesn't fit this "For Christ/Against Christ" model. It says that the master reaps where he has not sown and gathers where no seed has been scattered. So we have this idea that the master collects (reaps/gathers) where he has not invested (sown/scattered seed) but I don't think this suggests the master hasn't sown anything or hasn't scattered any seed or that he doesn't reap what he has sown or doesn't gather where he has scattered seed.

Not sown is shorthand for not covenanted. God did not covenant with Not My People, but He will still judge ALL. The covenanted with the covenant, and the not covenanted without the covenant.

for/against Christ may be implicit just because it's always implicit but that too doesn't seem to be the direct focus. the focus is about being able to multiply what we are given. multiplication is contrasted with that which is stagnant or that which doesn't increase. If the parable is about believers the servant that did not multiply would probably be known as a "pew warmer" which is an all too familiar scene. Whoever is not multiplying will be removed and that is very sobering.

Considering that there are believers who neither pick up the cross (deliver captives by unchaining) nor support those who do, it's quite obvious who is being addressed.

Captives ARE delivered by showing God's ability both in terms of sufficiency and in quality (heavenly currency). If you can't stand the heat involved, support those who can.

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

With no talents, or with 10,000 talents, what did Jesus tell all the disciples they each had to do just to be His disciple ? That is the starting point of life, as Jesus says, and not "logical" to mankind, nor acceptable nor understood by men.
=================================================
QUOTE="DamianWarS, post: 72868469, member: 224982"]Mat 25:14-30 is the parable of the talents. It opens saying "[the kingdom of heaven] will be like a man going on a journey, who called his servants and entrusted to them his property....

we know the parable... 3 men are given talents (money), the first 5, the second 2 and the third 1. When the master comes back the servant with 5 now has 10 and the servant with 2 now has 4 to which the response is "Well done, good and faithful servant". The final servant returned exactly what he was given because he hid it away, the master was angered by this and his talent was taken away and he "cast the worthless servant into the outer darkness"

there is a logic to this where some receive lots and some receive little. It is conceivable that perhaps a servant could receive 10, 100, or 1000 talents and with this the parable reveals there is an expectation to multiply that which was given. So we may go up with the logic but can we go down? The lowest servant got 1... are there then some who get 0 and if so what is the expectation upon that servant?

The parable uses some interesting language describing the master as a "hard man" as one who reaps where he has not sown and gathers where he has scattered no seed. One could argue giving talents to his servants to multiply it is a from of sowing but taking away when there was nothing to begin with would certainly agree with this philosophy of reaping and gather where there has been no sowing or scattering.

What is Jesus saying here? Where are the extremes this logic goes to? What about those with no talents?[/QUOTE

 

[dqhall]

Seems there's a reason why these words are ambiguous:

talent (n.)
late 13c., "inclination, disposition, will, desire," from Old French talent (12c.), from Medieval Latin talenta, plural of talentum "inclination, leaning, will, desire" (11c.), in classical Latin "balance, weight; sum of money," from Greek talanton "a balance, pair of scales," hence "weight, definite weight, anything weighed," and in later times sum of money," from PIE *tele- "to lift, support, weigh," "with derivatives referring to measured weights and thence money and payment"

A talent was a large weight of silver or gold. A talent of silver had a monetary value known to silver traders. It might be exchanged for copper, wheat, olive oil, real estate etc. The value of coins coincided with their weight and metal content or purity.

Jesus spoke about the servants of a wealthy man who were being tested to find if they had investment skills. To those who showed they were able to produce a satisfactory return on investment, those were given more funds to manage. The one who did not understand how to earn any return on investment was not allowed to invest any more.

The parable might also refer to those having useful skills and knowledge. One doing well in a job might be trained by his master for a higher level position in management. One messing up a low level job might not even be able to keep the low level job.

Disciples obeying Jesus went on to receive the Holy Spirit on the day of Pentecost. The one who betrayed Jesus for 30 pieces of silver wanted to kill himself.

 

[JIMINZ]

I speak to the logic of the parable. Is it conceivable that some get more that 5? Perhaps 10 of even 100? It is also conceivable that some get less than 1, perhaps a fraction or none at all.

.
That is reading something into the Parable, there is never a mention of more or less, the possibility isn't even alluded to, they are moot questions as far as the Parable is concerned.

 

[JIMINZ]

Some do a lot with nothing and some still seem to bury themselves deeper in ignorance.

.
You said it, I'm done.

No need for further discussion.

Have a Blessed day.

 

[Silly Uncle Wayne]

The idea is that some never get an opportunity to hear the Gospel and never hear the name Jesus or what his message is. Perhaps this is the servant with 1 talent but even he has knowledge of what his master was like. If the talents are the word then what about those who never hear the word? Are they too judged according to that which has been given them? Some do a lot with nothing and some still seem to bury themselves deeper in ignorance.

Personally I take the parable of talents to be about using potential and that is given by God to everyone, even those who have no chance to know him.

Intellectual giants like Dawkins have been given huge amounts in the talents stakes, but have buried it in fruitless endeavors such as writing books against God.

 

[Bible2+]

fhansen said in post #44:

And the fate of the wicked and lazy servant in the parable is interesting.

Indeed.

For Matthew 25:26,30 shows that even someone who was a servant of Jesus Christ can ultimately lose his salvation because of unrepentant laziness. One way that a Christian could desire to become lazy without repentance would be if he finds a particular sin to be very pleasurable, so pleasurable and so fulfilling (in the short term), that he continues in it over time until his love for God grows cold because of the abundance of iniquity (Matthew 24:12). Love for God means choosing to do what God says to do (1 John 5:3). So if one's love for God grows cold (Matthew 24:12), one will no longer choose to do what God says to do (John 14:24), meaning that one will become lazy in God's eyes (Matthew 25:26,30).

 

[Bible2+]

DamianWarS said in post #54:

Whoever is not multiplying will be removed and that is very sobering.

That's right.

Compare the similar idea of John 15:2a.

For John 15:2a refers to Christians, who are branches in the vine of Jesus Christ, wrongly employing their free will in such a way that they fail to produce good fruit, so that ultimately they are taken away from Jesus (John 15:2a), cut off from Him for their unrepentant laziness, to the ultimate loss of their salvation (Matthew 25:26,30).

Christians can also be ultimately cut off from Jesus Christ, cast away, and burned; they can ultimately lose their salvation, for not continuing to abide in Jesus (John 15:6), in the sense of committing apostasy (Hebrews 6:4-8; 1 Timothy 4:1; 2 Timothy 2:12b), or unrepentant sin (Hebrews 10:26-29, Luke 12:45-46; 1 Corinthians 9:27).

*******

DamianWarS said in post #59:

The parable of the 10 virgins is about 10 virgins awaiting the coming of the bridegroom, 5 were wise and kept their lamps lit and 5 were foolish and let their lamps die out. Is this parable speaking about Jews?

The ten virgins parable (Matthew 25:1-13) shows that the marriage of the Church to Jesus Christ will not occur until His Second Coming (Matthew 25:10), which Jesus had just finished saying will not occur until "immediately after" the Tribulation (Matthew 24:29-31), just as Revelation 19:7 shows that the marriage will not occur until after the future Tribulation, shown in Revelation chapters 6 to 18. The parable's extra oil (Matthew 25:4,9b) could represent the continued good works of Christians, by which they will be able to pass the judgment of the Church by Jesus (Matthew 25:19-30, Romans 2:6-8) and enter the marriage of the Church to Jesus at His Second Coming (Matthew 25:10, Revelation 19:7-21).

The marriage supper (Revelation 19:9) will not have started by the time of Revelation 19, which will not begin until after the future Tribulation of Revelation chapters 6 to 18 and Matthew 24 (cf. Matthew 24:29-31; 2 Thessalonians 2:1-8). For regarding the Church, the marriage supper will be a literal feast in the earthly Jerusalem, after the resurrection and marriage of the Church at Jesus Christ's future, Second Coming (Isaiah 25:6-9; 1 Corinthians 15:54, Revelation 19:7 to 20:6; 1 Thessalonians 4:15-16; 1 Corinthians 15:21-23,51-54). While the Church will enjoy a feast "of fat things full of marrow, of wines on the lees well refined" (Isaiah 25:6), the birds will feast on the corpses of the world's armies defeated by Jesus Himself at His Second Coming (Revelation 19:17-21).

Also, regarding the ten virgins parable, in Matthew 25:6 "midnight" could represent mid-tribulation, when the abomination of desolation (possibly a standing, android image of the future Antichrist) could be set up in the holy place (the inner sanctum) of a future, third Jewish temple in Jerusalem (Matthew 24:15, Daniel 11:31). So when it says: "at midnight there was a cry made, Behold, the bridegroom cometh" (Matthew 25:6), this could mean that at the mid-tribulation point when the abomination of desolation is set up, the Church will be given the knowledge of the date (as in the year, month, and day) of Jesus Christ's Second Coming. This date could be the 1,335th day after the abomination of desolation is set up (Daniel 12:11-12, cf. Revelation 16:15).

 

[Bible2+]

Danthemailman said in post #55:

This man's characterization of the master maligns him as a ruthless opportunist, "reaping and gathering" what he had no right to claim as his own. This slothful so-called servant does not represent a genuine believer, for it is obvious that this man had no true knowledge of the master.

The man did have true knowledge, for the Lord agrees with him in Matthew 25:26b-27. But the man was so lazy that he did nothing with his knowledge, and so ultimately lost his salvation.

Also, the point was not that the Lord reaps "what he had no right to claim", but that He benefits from our personal labor for His Kingdom, just as we as Christians benefit from the personal labor of others for His Kingdom (John 4:38).

 

[claninja]

Mat 25:14-30 is the parable of the talents. It opens saying "[the kingdom of heaven] will be like a man going on a journey, who called his servants and entrusted to them his property....

we know the parable... 3 men are given talents (money), the first 5, the second 2 and the third 1. When the master comes back the servant with 5 now has 10 and the servant with 2 now has 4 to which the response is "Well done, good and faithful servant". The final servant returned exactly what he was given because he hid it away, the master was angered by this and his talent was taken away and he "cast the worthless servant into the outer darkness"

there is a logic to this where some receive lots and some receive little. It is conceivable that perhaps a servant could receive 10, 100, or 1000 talents and with this the parable reveals there is an expectation to multiply that which was given. So we may go up with the logic but can we go down? The lowest servant got 1... are there then some who get 0 and if so what is the expectation upon that servant?

The parable uses some interesting language describing the master as a "hard man" as one who reaps where he has not sown and gathers where he has scattered no seed. One could argue giving talents to his servants to multiply it is a from of sowing but taking away when there was nothing to begin with would certainly agree with this philosophy of reaping and gather where there has been no sowing or scattering.

What is Jesus saying here? Where are the extremes this logic goes to? What about those with no talents?

The talents are the knowledge of the secrets of the kingdom of heaven. How do we know this? because we can cross reference with other scripture, specifically matthew 13:

Matthew 13:11-12 He replied, “Because the knowledge of the secrets of the kingdom of heaven has been given to you, but not to them. Whoever has will be given more, and they will have an abundance. Whoever does not have, even what they have will be taken from them.

Matthew 25:29 For whoever has will be given more, and they will have an abundance. Whoever does not have, even what they have will be taken from them

Luke 19:26 He replied, ‘I tell you that to everyone who has, more will be given, but as for the one who has nothing, even what they have will be taken away.

So yes, there are those who were not given talents in order that prophecy would be fulfilled

Matthew 13:14-15 Indeed, in their case the prophecy of Isaiah is fulfilled that says:“‘“You will indeed hear but never understand, and you will indeed see but never perceive.” For this people’s heart has grown dull, and with their ears they can barely hear, and their eyes they have closed, lest they should see with their eyes and hear with their ears and understand with their heart and turn, and I would heal them.’

If we read from Luke's version of the parable of the talents, we get a little more information.

We see that Jesus, before he ascends to the father to claim a kingdom (Daniel 7:13-14), gives a certain amount of knowledge of the kingdom of heaven to his disciples:
Luke 19:13 Calling ten of his servants,a he gave them ten minas,b and said to them, ‘Engage in business until I come.’
Matthew 28:19-20 Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them inb the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you. And behold, I am with you always, to the end of the age.”
Matthew 10:23 When they persecute you in one town, flee to the next, for truly, I say to you, you will not have gone through all the towns of Israel before the Son of Man comes.

We see that Jesus is rejected as king by his citizens (unfaithful Israel)
Luke 19:14 his citizens hated him and sent a delegation after him, saying, ‘We do not want this man to reign over us
John 19:15 The chief priests answered, “We have no king but Caesar.”
Acts 17:7 and Jason has received them, and they are all acting against the decrees of Caesar, saying that there is another king, Jesus.”

When the king returns, he slaughters the original citizens that did not want him to be king
Luke 19:27 But as for these enemies of mine, who did not want me to reign over them, bring them here and slaughter them before me.’”
Matthew 21:401-41 When therefore the owner of the vineyard comes, what will he do to those tenants?” They said to him, “He will put those wretches to a miserable death and let out the vineyard to other tenants who will give him the fruits in their seasons
Matthew 22:7 The king was angry, and he sent his troops and destroyed those murderers and burned their city

 

[Monk Brendan]

Mat 25:14-30 is the parable of the talents. It opens saying "[the kingdom of heaven] will be like a man going on a journey, who called his servants and entrusted to them his property....

we know the parable... 3 men are given talents (money), the first 5, the second 2 and the third 1. When the master comes back the servant with 5 now has 10 and the servant with 2 now has 4 to which the response is "Well done, good and faithful servant". The final servant returned exactly what he was given because he hid it away, the master was angered by this and his talent was taken away and he "cast the worthless servant into the outer darkness"

there is a logic to this where some receive lots and some receive little. It is conceivable that perhaps a servant could receive 10, 100, or 1000 talents and with this the parable reveals there is an expectation to multiply that which was given. So we may go up with the logic but can we go down? The lowest servant got 1... are there then some who get 0 and if so what is the expectation upon that servant?

The parable uses some interesting language describing the master as a "hard man" as one who reaps where he has not sown and gathers where he has scattered no seed. One could argue giving talents to his servants to multiply it is a from of sowing but taking away when there was nothing to begin with would certainly agree with this philosophy of reaping and gather where there has been no sowing or scattering.

What is Jesus saying here? Where are the extremes this logic goes to? What about those with no talents?

When God has a talent for you to use, he'll give it to you.

 

[bling]

Mat 25:14-30 is the parable of the talents. It opens saying "[the kingdom of heaven] will be like a man going on a journey, who called his servants and entrusted to them his property....

we know the parable... 3 men are given talents (money), the first 5, the second 2 and the third 1. When the master comes back the servant with 5 now has 10 and the servant with 2 now has 4 to which the response is "Well done, good and faithful servant". The final servant returned exactly what he was given because he hid it away, the master was angered by this and his talent was taken away and he "cast the worthless servant into the outer darkness"

there is a logic to this where some receive lots and some receive little. It is conceivable that perhaps a servant could receive 10, 100, or 1000 talents and with this the parable reveals there is an expectation to multiply that which was given. So we may go up with the logic but can we go down? The lowest servant got 1... are there then some who get 0 and if so what is the expectation upon that servant?

The parable uses some interesting language describing the master as a "hard man" as one who reaps where he has not sown and gathers where he has scattered no seed. One could argue giving talents to his servants to multiply it is a from of sowing but taking away when there was nothing to begin with would certainly agree with this philosophy of reaping and gather where there has been no sowing or scattering.

What is Jesus saying here? Where are the extremes this logic goes to? What about those with no talents?

I get into discussions about the Parable of the Talents, often with a different take on it. I often use the Greek word “tálanton” or call it a bag of money to avoid the miss understanding of Talent as a measure of money = talent as a human ability.

Just using the Parable itself to help us to come up with the spiritual meaning of the word tell us this:

1. Everyone is getting the exact same thing but in different portions. If Christ wanted to covey the idea that there were differences in the talantons, he should have said something like: talent of gold, talent of silver and talent of copper.

2. The determining amounts of the talentons given by Master is dependent on the quantity of one type of servant ability: the ability to grow the talenton.

3. The Talentons remains the possession of the Master and is not transferred to the servants.

4. The “ability” is exactly the same just in different strengths, but the growth itself will be dependent on the free will choices of the individual. If Christ wanted to show different types of “abilities” he should have given one a farm, one a sheep herd, and another a ship.

5. Every servant has some of this ability (there was no one given nothing).

6. There are only these servant of the master being talked about so it appears all the servants of the master were given this opportunity.

7. There is no “risk” of loss given; everyone that used the money grew the money.

8. The idea of a servant “stealing” the talanton never comes up, which means it might not be possible.

9. From the comments of the master: “27 Well then, you should have put my money on deposit with the bankers…” this would suggest the person could actually “let others use the talanton and have it grow in their hands and be alright.”

10. Two had “Hope” (desired expectations of the Master’s return) while the third lacked “hope”, but he may still have thought the Master would return.

11. The act of the master taking back the one talent from the unfaithful servant must also increase the ability of the 10 talent servant, since he is now given another talent.

Faith, Hope and Love are frequent topics of Christ and are regularly found, so can they be found in this parable?

Since we are talking about “money” in this parable, in the spiritual realm what is a measure of wealth and a medium of exchange?

Since we are talking about “ability” what is the one and only significant “ability” that all Christians and nonbelievers brings to the relationship that might be described as “their” ability and not as their God given ability?

What does a Christian have which he can actually give to other Christians and have them grow it and yet also have him/her share in the results?

If we say: “talanton is a Christian’s talents/abilities”, that would mean, the person was a lazy servant if the talent/ability was taken away (bad health, car wreck, job loss, etc.).

Christians say they either “know” what they are good at, so this is the “talent” God gave them or they do not know what the talent they were given and search for their talent. Yet every Christian has been given a portion of God’s love to extend to others and it will always grow with use and never can be reduced or taken away except by total lack of use. Love grows when used in the market place of life and so does our faith as we see God’s Love at work through us. We can also just love and support others in the market place of life that can do even more with our support (give it to the bankers). Also this Love will always grow up until we die and it has nothing to do with our health.

I suggest Christians just take the God’s Love and faith they have and use it out of pure gratitude. This could mean just washing the dishes out of what Christ did for them.

 

[Wordkeeper]

I get into discussions about the Parable of the Talents, often with a different take on it. I often use the Greek word “tálanton” or call it a bag of money to avoid the miss understanding of Talent as a measure of money = talent as a human ability.

Just using the Parable itself to help us to come up with the spiritual meaning of the word tell us this:

1. Everyone is getting the exact same thing but in different portions. If Christ wanted to covey the idea that there were differences in the talantons, he should have said something like: talent of gold, talent of silver and talent of copper.

2. The determining amounts of the talentons given by Master is dependent on the quantity of one type of servant ability: the ability to grow the talenton.

3. The Talentons remains the possession of the Master and is not transferred to the servants.

4. The “ability” is exactly the same just in different strengths, but the growth itself will be dependent on the free will choices of the individual. If Christ wanted to show different types of “abilities” he should have given one a farm, one a sheep herd, and another a ship.

5. Every servant has some of this ability (there was no one given nothing).

6. There are only these servant of the master being talked about so it appears all the servants of the master were given this opportunity.

7. There is no “risk” of loss given; everyone that used the money grew the money.

8. The idea of a servant “stealing” the talanton never comes up, which means it might not be possible.

9. From the comments of the master: “27 Well then, you should have put my money on deposit with the bankers…” this would suggest the person could actually “let others use the talanton and have it grow in their hands and be alright.”

10. Two had “Hope” (desired expectations of the Master’s return) while the third lacked “hope”, but he may still have thought the Master would return.

11. The act of the master taking back the one talent from the unfaithful servant must also increase the ability of the 10 talent servant, since he is now given another talent.

Faith, Hope and Love are frequent topics of Christ and are regularly found, so can they be found in this parable?

Since we are talking about “money” in this parable, in the spiritual realm what is a measure of wealth and a medium of exchange?

Since we are talking about “ability” what is the one and only significant “ability” that all Christians and nonbelievers brings to the relationship that might be described as “their” ability and not as their God given ability?

What does a Christian have which he can actually give to other Christians and have them grow it and yet also have him/her share in the results?

If we say: “talanton is a Christian’s talents/abilities”, that would mean, the person was a lazy servant if the talent/ability was taken away (bad health, car wreck, job loss, etc.).

Christians say they either “know” what they are good at, so this is the “talent” God gave them or they do not know what the talent they were given and search for their talent. Yet every Christian has been given a portion of God’s love to extend to others and it will always grow with use and never can be reduced or taken away except by total lack of use. Love grows when used in the market place of life and so does our faith as we see God’s Love at work through us. We can also just love and support others in the market place of life that can do even more with our support (give it to the bankers). Also this Love will always grow up until we die and it has nothing to do with our health.

I suggest Christians just take the God’s Love and faith they have and use it out of pure gratitude. This could mean just washing the dishes out of what Christ did for them.

You can't put love in a bank for others to use and make a profit, get a harvest. But you CAN put money in a ministry for others to use if you can't make the sacrifice of going into ministry yourself, which the wicked servant did not do. Instead he put the resource, property belonging to God to which he was unfaithful with, put it in a hole in the ground, into earning wealth that perished and rusts, like most of us are doing.

 

[bling]

You can't put love in a bank for others to use and make a profit, get a harvest. But you CAN put money in a ministry for others to use if you can't make the sacrifice of going into ministry yourself, which the wicked servant did not do. Instead he put the resource, property belonging to God to which he was unfaithful with, put it in a hole in the ground, into earning wealth that perished and rusts, like most of us are doing.

Even if you do not have money, you can take the Love given you by God (spiritual money) and extend that Love to missionaries (the money changers in the Spiritual realm) in pray, letters to them, keep up with their work and share in their results. Witnessing what they are doing and as your Love grows you will eventually become involved directly.

 

[RDKirk]

Yes, it seems, it can't be zero. Everyone has something, no matter how little.

I don't think it's literal anyway. Even if it says "none", it could also mean having very little of something.

A believer has his testimony--what Jesus has done in his life--if nothing else. But that alone is amazing.

Take the Samaritan woman at the well. We have some reason to believe that she was not highly reputed in her town. Her grasp of theology was tenuous. She didn't even know for sure who Jesus was. Yet on nothing but her testimony of what Jesus said to her, she drew the entire town to hear Jesus for themselves.