The benefits of socialism

[Sam91]

But the interest - usury - is the issue, as this can never be repaid. Hence God's prohibition of it to the Israelites (to each other - not to their enemies).

Imagine if we had the jubilee year like Israel did?

 

[Doctor.Sphinx]

Imagine if we had the jubilee year like Israel did?

That would solve many of today's problems. Maybe you should advocate it?

(Sometimes, I think it would have been really fun to live in Old Testament times).

 

[Sam91]

That would solve many of today's problems. Maybe you should advocate it?

(Sometimes, I think it would have been really fun to live in Old Testament times).

I think I'd get lynched.

 

[Doctor.Sphinx]

I think I'd get lynched.

Then bring some back-up.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

But the interest - usury - is the issue, as this can never be repaid. Hence God's prohibition of it to the Israelites (to each other - not to their enemies).

True, interest will accumulate until the whole thing collapses, but until it does we have to "make friends with/by it".

We're dealing with the "mammon of unrightousness" today, and we have to play by it's rules. The parable of the talents suggests that usury is acceptable.

 

[JackRT]

US deficit with Denmark = $3,500,000

Guess the USA will have to cut back on blue cheese imports.

 

[JackRT]

The current battle (imo) in the U.S. is between collectivism and individualism. You might parse this as socialism vs capitalism as well.

Also evil vs. good.

The comparison is hardly black and white but rather shades of grey. Both political philosophies are capable of both great good and great evil. It is up to each nation to find a balance which best serves their needs and resources.

 

[JackRT]

The parable of the talents suggests that usury is acceptable.

Only if the context of the parable is lost.

 

[TheNorwegian]

Edit: As of July 2018 the EU posted a trade surplus of $17Billion (USD). At the same time the U.S. posted a trade deficit of $17Billion (USD) with the EU. Therefore trade with the U.S. represents 100 percent of the EU's trade surplus.

Are you suggesting Norway is part of the EU?
Also, of course Nordic countries may have a different trade walance with the US than what the entire EU has

 

[TheNorwegian]

Norway Balance of Trade | 1960-2018 | Data | Chart | Calendar | Forecast

I do not see how this say something different? The USA is not the major reason for Norway's trade surplus

 

[Doctor.Sphinx]

True, interest will accumulate until the whole thing collapses, but until it does we have to "make friends with/by it".

I'd disagree. Usury can last as long as we want it to, but it robs the weakest in society first. It's a weapon of war which should be reserved for enemies.

We're dealing with the "mammon of unrighteosness" today, and we have to play by it's rules.

Lol. So all evil is acceptable because we live in an unrighteous society? I think I understand where you're coming from, but we don't take that attitude with other evils.

The parable of the talents suggests that usury is acceptable.

Jesus was just pointing out the lazy guy's hypocrisy. The one-talent guy had basically accused the talent owner of being a banker (getting rich by usury). So the owner said to him 'Okay, if you truly believed this, why didn't you act consistently with these beliefs, and invest my money with the usurers?' I don't think Jesus was condoning usury in the passage, anymore than he condoned robbery in the Good Samaritan.

 

[JackRT]

Jesus was just pointing out the lazy guy's hypocrisy. The one-talent guy had basically accused the talent owner of being a banker (getting rich by usury). So the owner said to him 'Okay, if you truly believed this, why didn't you act consistently with these beliefs, and invest my money with the usurers?' I don't think Jesus was condoning usury in the passage, anymore than he condoned robbery in the Good Samaritan.

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.

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)

As Richard Rohrbaugh and William Herzog have demonstrated -- though in very different ways, as we will see -- the third servant is the hero of this parable, because he acted honorably and refused to participate in the rapacious schemes of the master. Contrast with the agenda of the first two servants:

"First things first: the master's initial investment must be secured, then doubled; after that, the retainers can make their profit. They are always walking a tightrope, keeping the master's gain high enough to appease his greed and not incur his wrath while keeping their own accumulations of wealth small enough not to arouse suspicion yet lucrative enough to insure their future. The master knows the system too, and as long as the retainers keep watch of his interests and maintain a proper yield, he does not begrudge their gains. In fact, he stands to gain a great deal by encouraging the process. Not only do the retainers do his dirty work, exploiting others for profit, but they siphon off anger that would otherwise be directed at him." (Herzog, Parables as Subversive Speech, p 160).

The first two servants do exactly as expected of them, doubling the master's money and presumably making some "honest graft" on the side, as all retainers did in agrarian empires. But the third servant acts completely out of character -- this alone is the tip-off that he will be the story's hero -- by digging a hole and burying the master's money to keep it intact, acting in accordance with Jewish law.(2)

When the master (naturally) rewards the two servants, the third servant acts stunningly by blowing the whistle on him (as Herzog puts it), while at the same time giving him back the money he had buried in trust: "Master, I know that you are a hard man, reaping where you did not sow, gathering where you did not scatter." This retainer says what every peasant has always wanted to say.

An alternate version of this parable was preserved in the Gospel of the Nazorenes (now lost), reported by Eusebius. Here the third servant is accepted with joy, while the other two are condemned. In "A Peasant Reading of the Talents/Pounds", Rohrbaugh notes the chiastic structure:

The master had three servants:

A one who squandered his master’s substance with harlots and flute girls
B one who multiplied the gain
C and one who hid the talent;

and accordingly,

C’ one was accepted with joy
B’ another merely rebuked
A’ and another cast into prison.

(Eusebius, Theophania; from Hennecke & Schneemelcher, New Testament Apocrypha 1:149)

Though I'm eternally suspicious of arguments based on chiastic structures, this one is powerful. Here we have an ancient author who rejected the Matthean judgment on the third servant, while modern critics insist on vilifying him.

Like many of Jesus' parables, the Talents ends on dark ambiguity. "The whistle-blower is no fool," says Herzog. "He realizes that he will pay a price, but he has decided to accept the cost (p 167)." The question is who his friends are after banishment. Will peasants acknowledge and respect his honorable course of action, or would the fact that he was a retainer make such meeting of the minds impossible? Listeners are left pondering the fate of an unlikely hero.


Endnotes

1. The ways in which critics have followed Matthew's (and Luke's) demonizing of the third servant are astounding. C.H. Dodd thinks that the third servant's "overcaution" and "cowardice" led to a breach in trust. T.W. Manson believes that the punishment for the third servant's "neglected opportunity" was a complete "deprivation of opportunity". Dan Via says the third servant's "refusal to take risks" led to repressed guilt and the loss of opportunity for any meaningful existence. John Donahue thinks that out of "fear of failing", the third servant refused even to try to succeed. The list could go on and on. (See Herzog, p 153.)

2. According to the Mishnah, money could be guarded honorably only by placing it in the earth: M.B. Mes. 3:10; B.B. Mes. 42a.

Bibliography

Eusebius: Theophania (from Hennecke & Schneemelcher, New Testament Apocrypha, Westminster, 1963.)

Herzog, William: Parables as Subversive Speech, Westminster John Knox, 1994.

Malina, Bruce & Rohrbaugh, Richard: Social Science Commentary on the Synoptic Gospels, Second Edition, Augsburg Fortress, 2003.

Rohrbaugh, Richard: "A Peasant Reading of the Talents/Pounds: A Text of Terror", BTB 23:32-39, 1993.

 

[Sam91]

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.

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)

As Richard Rohrbaugh and William Herzog have demonstrated -- though in very different ways, as we will see -- the third servant is the hero of this parable, because he acted honorably and refused to participate in the rapacious schemes of the master. Contrast with the agenda of the first two servants:

"First things first: the master's initial investment must be secured, then doubled; after that, the retainers can make their profit. They are always walking a tightrope, keeping the master's gain high enough to appease his greed and not incur his wrath while keeping their own accumulations of wealth small enough not to arouse suspicion yet lucrative enough to insure their future. The master knows the system too, and as long as the retainers keep watch of his interests and maintain a proper yield, he does not begrudge their gains. In fact, he stands to gain a great deal by encouraging the process. Not only do the retainers do his dirty work, exploiting others for profit, but they siphon off anger that would otherwise be directed at him." (Herzog, Parables as Subversive Speech, p 160).

The first two servants do exactly as expected of them, doubling the master's money and presumably making some "honest graft" on the side, as all retainers did in agrarian empires. But the third servant acts completely out of character -- this alone is the tip-off that he will be the story's hero -- by digging a hole and burying the master's money to keep it intact, acting in accordance with Jewish law.(2)

When the master (naturally) rewards the two servants, the third servant acts stunningly by blowing the whistle on him (as Herzog puts it), while at the same time giving him back the money he had buried in trust: "Master, I know that you are a hard man, reaping where you did not sow, gathering where you did not scatter." This retainer says what every peasant has always wanted to say.

An alternate version of this parable was preserved in the Gospel of the Nazorenes (now lost), reported by Eusebius. Here the third servant is accepted with joy, while the other two are condemned. In "A Peasant Reading of the Talents/Pounds", Rohrbaugh notes the chiastic structure:

The master had three servants:

A one who squandered his master’s substance with harlots and flute girls
B one who multiplied the gain
C and one who hid the talent;

and accordingly,

C’ one was accepted with joy
B’ another merely rebuked
A’ and another cast into prison.

(Eusebius, Theophania; from Hennecke & Schneemelcher, New Testament Apocrypha 1:149)

Though I'm eternally suspicious of arguments based on chiastic structures, this one is powerful. Here we have an ancient author who rejected the Matthean judgment on the third servant, while modern critics insist on vilifying him.

Like many of Jesus' parables, the Talents ends on dark ambiguity. "The whistle-blower is no fool," says Herzog. "He realizes that he will pay a price, but he has decided to accept the cost (p 167)." The question is who his friends are after banishment. Will peasants acknowledge and respect his honorable course of action, or would the fact that he was a retainer make such meeting of the minds impossible? Listeners are left pondering the fate of an unlikely hero.


Endnotes

1. The ways in which critics have followed Matthew's (and Luke's) demonizing of the third servant are astounding. C.H. Dodd thinks that the third servant's "overcaution" and "cowardice" led to a breach in trust. T.W. Manson believes that the punishment for the third servant's "neglected opportunity" was a complete "deprivation of opportunity". Dan Via says the third servant's "refusal to take risks" led to repressed guilt and the loss of opportunity for any meaningful existence. John Donahue thinks that out of "fear of failing", the third servant refused even to try to succeed. The list could go on and on. (See Herzog, p 153.)

2. According to the Mishnah, money could be guarded honorably only by placing it in the earth: M.B. Mes. 3:10; B.B. Mes. 42a.

Bibliography

Eusebius: Theophania (from Hennecke & Schneemelcher, New Testament Apocrypha, Westminster, 1963.)

Herzog, William: Parables as Subversive Speech, Westminster John Knox, 1994.

Malina, Bruce & Rohrbaugh, Richard: Social Science Commentary on the Synoptic Gospels, Second Edition, Augsburg Fortress, 2003.

Rohrbaugh, Richard: "A Peasant Reading of the Talents/Pounds: A Text of Terror", BTB 23:32-39, 1993.

Isn't the third person the one who hears of the kingdom of heaven and doesn't put that into use and sits and relies on it as entrance into heaven. Whereas the others hear about it, embrace it and spread the good news?

 

[JackRT]

Isn't the third person the one who hears of the kingdom of heaven and doesn't put that into use and sits and relies on it as entrance into heaven. Whereas the others hear about it, embrace it and spread the good news?

So, you did not read the post?

 

[Sam91]

So, you did not read my post?

I did and I'm not sure about that other gospel Eusebius mentioned, or what you meant. Which is why I told you what I thought so you could explain it more simply.

 

[Doctor.Sphinx]

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.

Wait. You're saying the lazy guy is actually the good one? Lol.

 

[JackRT]

Wait. You're saying the lazy guy is actually the good one? Lol.

Yes, and I am quite serious about that. The other two retainers were seduced by their master's greed and acted in the same way themselves. The only honest man behaved ethically and was severely punished for it. The peasants whom Jesus was addressing his parable understood his meaning very well.

The traditional understanding of this parable represents a Christianity that is speaking from a position of entitlement --- those who have are entitled to more. That is against everything Jesus was about.

 

[Doctor.Sphinx]

Yes, and I am quite serious about that. The other two retainers were seduced by their master's greed and acted in the same way themselves. The only honest man behaved ethically and was severely punished for it. The peasants whom Jesus was addressing his parable understood his meaning very well.

The traditional understanding of this parable represents a Christianity that is speaking from a position of entitlement --- those who have are entitled to more. That is against everything Jesus was about.

This is so wrong, I don't even know where to begin.

 

[Chris V++]

Isn't the third person the one who hears of the kingdom of heaven and doesn't put that into use and sits and relies on it as entrance into heaven. Whereas the others hear about it, embrace it and spread the good news?

I always understood the parable the way Sam is understanding it. The fearful servant isn't being profitable


Its similar to the the fruits analogy -

'Likewise, every good tree bears good fruit, but a bad tree bears bad fruit. A good tree cannot bear bad fruit, and a bad tree cannot bear good fruit. Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire.'

or the seed analogy

'And these are they who are sown on good ground; such as hear the word, and receive it, and bring forth fruit, some thirtyfold, some sixty, and some a hundred.'

 

[JackRT]

This is so wrong, I don't even know where to begin.

It is not wrong, it is just not a traditional understanding. We must understand that Christianity has been in a position of power and entitlement since Constantine and 1700 years has given it plenty of time to become so thoroughly entrenched that some Christians actually consider it normal.