Everyone got this Parable wrong!

[Maria Billingsley]

The Parable of The Talents has NOTHING to do with money, nor our abilities, talents, etc....

It's all about how much we know of the TRUTH / Mysteries of the Kingdom of God.

It is knowledge that isn't revealed to everyone but only to those who have ears to hear.

The correct answer:

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

I believe it has to do with spreading the Gospel and faithfulness to it. Some are more gifted with evangelism and faith and some not so much which is why God gives accordingly. That being said, the moral of the story is to bring others into the Kingdom of God while faithfully serving Him according to the gifts God has given us through the Holy Spirit. Those who doubled their talents represent the obedience to the will of God with all faithfulness however, the one that buried and hid the Good News from others was cast out of the Kingdom as a faithless apostate.
Blessings

 

[JackRT]

Thank you. It is somewhat comforting to know that many better minds than mine have pondered this parable (not to mention all of scripture) and have come up with variant interpretations, allowing me the freedom to assess their relative merits. It can be disturbing to those who latch on to one interpretation and find that there are other interpretations, some of which might actually be better.

I agree. It is helpful to note that Jesus' primary audience was the Judean/Galilean peasant and to ask "how would they hear this parable?" Today, almost two millennia later, we Christians do tend to view scripture from the perspective of dominance and privilege. This may be exactly the wrong approach.

 

[bbbbbbb]

I agree. It is helpful to note that Jesus' primary audience was the Judean/Galilean peasant and to ask "how would they hear this parable?" Today, almost two millennia later, we Christians do tend to view scripture from the perspective of dominance and privilege. This may be exactly the wrong approach.

OTOH, it is also easy to establish a Hegelian interpretation on the parable when one may have never been intended. We do know quite a lot about first-century Middle Eastern culture, but hardly enough to determine precise meanings.

For example, we know that, as at the present time in many areas of Christianity, there was a strongly apocalyptic view of current events which, IMO, is frequently quite far-fetched. One of the appeals of Christianity in the Roman culture was its sense of immediate apocalypse. Following the eruption of Mount Vesuvius in A. D. 69 and the sack of Jerusalem in the following year, many believed that the end of the world was upon them. That is the primary reason that Nero ascribed the burning of Rome to the Christians - they were trying to hasten the Day of the Lord (or so he thought).

Taking that mindset to this parable, one senses not the virtue of the third servant, but that of the two other servants who, investing for the short term gain, were rewarded accordingly.

 

[Tone]

You don't burn the money. Everything is for a reason.

Money can be useful in our quest for the Truth. Invest money for the sake of the Truth (the Lord).

But "give it back to Caesar". In other words, use it only for things that matter, NOT to indulge yourself with it.

Burn...use...invest...consume...use your imagination for Love.

 

[helmut]

Jesus also walked up to the Pharisees and their thousands of years old religion to tell them they are wrong and that Moses......Well, they basically drove him to madness with their unceasing complaints!

I'm a big fan of Jesus, that's all.

Do you really want to say that your truth is like the truth of Jesus? Do you think you are more than an ordinary (wo)man?

 

[helmut]

This is very interesting. If this is true, then a lot of our teachers (preachers, priests) could be unqualified to teach.

A person that claims to have the ultimate truth and being the only person that have it, is unqualified to teach.

But outside of sects only very few teachers (pastors, priests, ...) have this attitude.

 

[helmut]

Until the time I started this thread, I haven't heard anyone interpret the parable in the context of the knowledge of the Truth.

Maybe because this is wrong context?

A parable has a literal meaning, a point of comparison, and a spritual meaning focused on this point. Unlike a allegory, not every element of a parable can be translated into the spiritual meaning.

The literal meaning is clear: It is about talents, i.e. big money, that should be invested to gain profit. The one who only puts it into a "safe" is punished, since his fellows show that the money could be doubled.

What is the point of comparison?

Most think (you think: wrongly) that the pint of comparison is the investing/non-investing thing: We should use what the Lord has given us to "gain profit", not profit for us, but "profit" for the Lord. What this means in detail, opinions differ (resp. several explanations are allowed to coexist).

You give no point of comparison, so I can't see how we can arrive at your "truth" explanation. But if I assume (for the sake of argument) that the parable is about truth, it should be clear that we should share the truth as much as possible, because burying the truth up somewhere is exactly what the bad servant did. But then I read in another comment from you, that you advice not to share the truth "indiscriminative". This is a contradiction within what you say, and can be seen as an indication that your thoughts are loose and not well-founded.

I so come to the conclusion that those who only insist on "money" are wrong (the spiritual meaning is not the literal one), while those who explain the talents as gifts (spiritual and/or material blessing) are right.

You may line in "truth" as a gift from God into the list which contains the actual meaning of "talent" for different people. But I can't see how truth can be "doubled" - are we really expected to show the Lord how we grew in knowing the truth and are punished if we didn't?

 

[Josephus]

The Parable of The Talents has NOTHING to do with money, nor our abilities, talents, etc....

It's all about how much we know of the TRUTH / Mysteries of the Kingdom of God.

It is knowledge that isn't revealed to everyone but only to those who have ears to hear.

The correct answer:

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

This understanding is on the same level as understanding that when Jesus said "if your hand causes you to sin..." but previously just said that sin is generated from the heart (which you can't really cut out without dying).

 

[helmut]

Parable of the Talents

The parable of the Talents (Mt 25:14-28) is about a servant who acts honorably by burying money given in trust, courageously denouncing an exploitive master, and as a result is consigned to extinction for his audacity.

This explanation ignores the context of what Jesus said elsewhere.

Let's start with the parallel in Luke 19:11-27. There are some differences, which should be considered in a prudent exegesis, but the "exploitive master,audacious servant" thing is quite the same. So we should expect your explanation to be true of that parable, either (with maybe minor differences we need not discuss here).

Now one of the differences to Matthew is the frame: It is not about a merchant going abroad for some unexplained reason, Luke's parable is about a candidate going into a far city (which in that time could only be Rome) to acquire the kingdom he is about to leave. In the end of the parable, he returns as king, punishing not only the "audacious" servant, but also the enemies that tried to prevent him becoming a king (Lk 19:14). And this can be related to what Jesus says elsewhere.

The title Jesus applies most often to Himself is "Son of Man". this is from Dan 7:13-14: The a son of man comes with the clouds of heaven from the earth to the throne of the ancient of days, and is enthroned as ruler of the whole earth. We therefore have the clue to the frame of the parable in Lk 19: Jesus is about to leave in order to get authority over all the earth, and will return a Son of Man to judge everybody.

A side note: Jewish apocalyptic expectations were not uniform, some waited not for a "Messaiah", but for Elijah (who went to heaven, as told in the OT books of kings) to return as Son of Man. This was not as strong related to "military" expectations, and together with other connotations of "son of man" was therefore more useful than "Messaiah" as a (Self-)description of Jesus and his mission on earth, though Jesus didn't see Himself as Elijah.

Jesus coming back and judging everybody is also a theme in His teaching when the term "Son of Man" does not appear.

So we know the key to Lk 19, and it is also the key to Mt 25: Jesus is going (leaving, by being crucified, and going to heaven), and will return as ruler and judge of the world, expecting his followers to have gained "profit" for him. Your explanation is eisegesis, which does not fit into what Jesus tells elsewhere.

Look also into post #63, which arrives at similar conclusions on a quite different path.

PS: Another side-remark, maybe disturbing to all who anachronistically use modern standards how a parable should look like: The frame in Lk 19 fits very closely the story of Archelaos, when he sailed to Rome to become king (he was only appointed as Tetrarch), followed by a ship of Jews who tried to persuade Rome not to give him the kingdom ...

 

[bbbbbbb]

This explanation ignores the context of what Jesus said elsewhere.

Let's start with the parallel in Luke 19:11-27. There are some differences, which should be considered in a prudent exegesis, but the "exploitive master,audacious servant" thing is quite the same. So we should expect your explanation to be true of that parable, either (with maybe minor differences we need not discuss here).

Now one of the differences to Matthew is the frame: It is not about a merchant going abroad for some unexplained reason, Luke's parable is about a candidate going into a far city (which in that time could only be Rome) to acquire the kingdom he is about to leave. In the end of the parable, he returns as king, punishing not only the "audacious" servant, but also the enemies that tried to prevent him becoming a king (Lk 19:14). And this can be related to what Jesus says elsewhere.

The title Jesus applies most often to Himself is "Son of Man". this is from Dan 7:13-14: The a son of man comes with the clouds of heaven from the earth to the throne of the ancient of days, and is enthroned as ruler of the whole earth. We therefore have the clue to the frame of the parable in Lk 19: Jesus is about to leave in order to get authority over all the earth, and will return a Son of Man to judge everybody.

A side note: Jewish apocalyptic expectations were not uniform, some waited not for a "Messaiah", but for Elijah (who went to heaven, as told in the OT books of kings) to return as Son of Man. This was not as strong related to "military" expectations, and together with other connotations of "son of man" was therefore more useful than "Messaiah" as a (Self-)description of Jesus and his mission on earth, though Jesus didn't see Himself as Elijah.

Jesus coming back and judging everybody is also a theme in His teaching when the term "Son of Man" does not appear.

So we know the key to Lk 19, and it is also the key to Mt 25: Jesus is going (leaving, by being crucified, and going to heaven), and will return as ruler and judge of the world, expecting his followers to have gained "profit" for him. Your explanation is eisegesis, which does not fit into what Jesus tells elsewhere.

Look also into post #63, which arrives at similar conclusions on a quite different path.

PS: Another side-remark, maybe disturbing to all who anachronistically use modern standards how a parable should look like: The frame in Lk 19 fits very closely the story of Archelaos, when he sailed to Rome to become king (he was only appointed as Tetrarch), followed by a ship of Jews who tried to persuade Rome not to give him the kingdom ...

Thank you. I did not know about the situation regarding Archelaos.

 

[helmut]

Thank you. I did not know about the situation regarding Archelaos.

Oh ...

Archelaos was, of course, not the only one who went to Rome to become king. Though some of the listeners of Jesus might well have remembered him when they heard the parable, it was a more general scheme that happened (with slight variations) in different "clientel kingdoms" in the East of the Roman empire.

 

[bbbbbbb]

Oh ...

Archelaos was, of course, not the only one who went to Rome to become king. Though some of the listeners of Jesus might well have remembered him when they heard the parable, it was a more general scheme that happened (with slight variations) in different "clientel kingdoms" in the East of the Roman empire.

Yes, that sounds like a standard maneuver in the Roman empire, but I did not realize the severity of the situation whereby a boatload of Jews was also sent to Rome to change the decision. Thanks again.

 

[timewerx]

Little children Loved Christ and we are to be like them (trusting), so how much truth did they know?

Little children often possess more of the Truth than adults.

Unfortunately, as they grow up, adults corrupt them with their worldly thinking and loses hold of the truth.

Paul tells us in 1Cor. 13:1-4 that without Love anything we do is worthless and did not say “without knowledge everything you do is worthless”.

Not everything the Apostles knew were included in the Bible, obviously. These letters are very old and some are have been lost over the ages. Even some were only orally shared and probably never written.

For example, Apostle Paul said that "the love of money is the root of all evil" is it?

In absolute degree, it's rather ignorance (lack of truth) the root of all evil....

Because if you know the truth, you won't love money.

 

[timewerx]

what church do you go to currently?

It probably wouldn't matter as they also have a different interpretation of the Parable of the Talents.

An interpretation that I don't agree with.

So far, I haven't been to a church who explained it in the way I did.

 

[helmut]

So far, I haven't been to a church who explained it in the way I did.

You seem to be very reluctant to take in corrections. It means nothing to you that you find no church which supports your idea?

 

[timewerx]

Most people understand the story as Matthew has (cf. Lk 19:12-24). But his concluding editorial, "To all those who have, more will be given, but from those who have nothing, even what they have will be taken away" is at odds with everything else Jesus says on the subject of haves and have-nots (Mk 10:25/Mt 19:24/Lk 18:25; Mt 6:19-21/Lk 12:33-34; Mt 19:30; Mt 20:16; Lk 6:24; Lk 16:19-31); and Jesus was obviously no capitalist. Matthew's editorial implies that the first two servants are the heroes of the story, which Jewish peasants would have found outrageous.(1).

That's why the Parable isn't talking about money / material wealth or you'll run into contradictions.

Jesus is indeed talking of the knowledge of the Truth. Because the less you have it, the more you are likely to be deceived by the corrupt ways of this world. And the more you accept the ways of this world, the more Truth you lose.

Thus, confirms what Jesus said, to those who have none, the little they have will be taken.

Not all the rich people will be condemned...They will be condemned however, based on how they handled their riches - whether according to the corrupt ways of this world or whether according to the Truth.

It's all about the Truth really. Without it, everything is worthless, evil, just a waste of everything.

 

[timewerx]

You seem to be very reluctant to take in corrections. It means nothing to you that you find no church which supports your idea?

I did accept the popular interpretation of the Parable many years ago.

But after many years, my observation of reality contradicts the interpretation so I started questioning the things I believe in as a Christian.

So all these are based on life experiences. If a teaching doesn't agree with observable facts, then it's likely false.

 

[helmut]

I did accept the popular interpretation of the Parable many years ago.

What interpretation was "popular" in your circles?

That the talents are not literal money, is taught in virtually every church or group I know.

 

[timewerx]

What interpretation was "popular" in your circles?

That the talents are not literal money, is taught in virtually every church or group I know.

Popular interpretations are gifts/abilities, spiritual gifts, ability to make money, and winning people to Christ or growing a church.

The problem is that if a person has no truth or believes a mix of lies and truth, then those things are worthless. The person ends up deceiving others, thus, a waste of effort.

And since, one explanation of that parable is about the Truth, then it becomes the strongest case of being the most applicable context of that parable.

 

[Strong in Him]

Popular interpretations are gifts/abilities, spiritual gifts, ability to make money, and winning people to Christ or growing a church.

The problem is that if a person has no truth or believes a mix of lies and truth, then those things are worthless. The person ends up deceiving others, thus, a waste of effort.

And since, one explanation of that parable is about the Truth, then it becomes the strongest case of being the most applicable context of that parable.

Parables often have a number of meanings or applications, and if a parable speaks to you in a way that it doesn't speak to others, that's o.k.
But I am wary whenever I see the words "everyone is wrong except me"; experience tells me that that is seldom the case. In fact, that's usually how cults start - a charismatic leader convinces others that they have a special revelation from God that no one else, especially not churches, has been given.

Sure, if God has told you to do something, or apply a parable or teaching to your life in a certain way; you do it, whatever anyone else says. Everyone was wrong about David when he fought Goliath, for instance. But I think it incorrect to teach that there is one meaning to a parable, that you alone have/know it, that everyone else is wrong - and what's more, you are not going to belong to a church because they are all wrong about this.