The Parable of the Talents

[Glass*Soul]

I've been having a discussion on the Parable of the Wedding Feast here. The main point I've been discussing about that parable is the identity of the king. I don't think the king represents God. I understand that this is a minority opinion.

I believe the same if true of the Parable of the Talents in Matthew 25, and I think it is actually more obvious and demonstrable in this parable. I would be very interested to get any feedback on this, so my question again is:

• Who is the king in this parable?

“Again, it will be like a man going on a journey, who called his servants and entrusted his wealth to them. To one he gave five bags of gold, to another two bags, and to another one bag, each according to his ability. Then he went on his journey. The man who had received five bags of gold went at once and put his money to work and gained five bags more. So also, the one with two bags of gold gained two more. But the man who had received one bag went off, dug a hole in the ground and hid his master’s money.
“After a long time the master of those servants returned and settled accounts with them. The 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.’
“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!’
“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.’
“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!’
“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. So I was afraid and went out and hid your gold in the ground. See, here is what belongs to you.’
“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? Well 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.
“‘So take the bag of gold from him and give it to the one who has ten bags. 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. And throw that worthless servant outside, into the darkness, where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth.’”

I think the king is Herod Archelaus. The Parable of the Talents is a warning as to how dark things can get in the insatiable world of riches and politics and that Christ's kingdom will be existing along side and amidst this world.

Matthew is my favorite Gospel, but Luke's telling of this parable in chapter 19 actually makes it more clear that the values of this king are not good ones. Sorry for the length of this topic but I want to post this telling of the parable too, because having them side-by-side actually makes my point clearer. The first parable feels a little ambiguous, but the second one is more pointedly like the story of Archelaus and depicts him as even more money-grubbing and gruesome.

While they were listening to this, he went on to tell them a parable, because he was near Jerusalem and the people thought that the kingdom of God was going to appear at once. He said: “A man of noble birth went to a distant country to have himself appointed king and then to return. So he called ten of his servants and gave them ten minas. ‘Put this money to work,’ he said, ‘until I come back.’ “But his subjects hated him and sent a delegation after him to say, ‘We don’t want this man to be our king.’
“He was made king, however, and returned home. Then he sent for the servants to whom he had given the money, in order to find out what they had gained with it.
“The first one came and said, ‘Sir, your mina has earned ten more.’
“‘Well done, my good servant!’ his master replied. ‘Because you have been trustworthy in a very small matter, take charge of ten cities.’
“The second came and said, ‘Sir, your mina has earned five more.’
“His master answered, ‘You take charge of five cities.’
“Then another servant came and said, ‘Sir, here is your mina; I have kept it laid away in a piece of cloth. I was afraid of you, because you are a hard man. You take out what you did not put in and reap what you did not sow.’
“His master replied, ‘I will judge you by your own words, you wicked servant! You knew, did you, that I am a hard man, taking out what I did not put in, and reaping what I did not sow? Why then didn’t you put my money on deposit, so that when I came back, I could have collected it with interest?’
“Then he said to those standing by, ‘Take his mina away from him and give it to the one who has ten minas.’
“‘Sir,’ they said, ‘he already has ten!’
“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. But those enemies of mine who did not want me to be king over them—bring them here and kill them in front of me.’”

You will notice I bolded two similar passages in the two tellings. This is what first began me thinking that the king in this parable was not God. Who is it that reaps where he did not sow? Is it God? To answer that we can look at a parable that is actually explained by Christ. It is in Matthew 13: The parable of the Sower. In the parable of the sower, the sower can't reap where he hasn't sown. He's sown everywhere, even on the path and on the rocks. It is "the evil one" who reaps where he has not sown. I will quote verse 19:

When anyone hears the message about the kingdom and does not understand it, the evil one comes and snatches away what was sown in their heart.

Further evidence that the parable of the talents can be used to interpret the parable of the sower is in verse 11-13:

He replied, “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 he will have an abundance. Whoever does not have, even what he has will be taken from him. This is why I speak to them in parables...”

This exact same saying is repeated by the king in the Parable of the Talents in both Matthew and Luke.

This isn't a saying that expresses kingdom values. It is warning. A reason to be careful and to speak in parables. There are evil ones about who will extract everything from you they can and when they cannot extract anything further will extract your very life. It is not necessary to make oneself utterly vulnerable to them unless one's values absolutely demand it.


What do you think? Have I made a valid point?


BTW, as per usual, if you wish to comment pointedly upon my being an atheist, please do so here. I want this thread to stay on topic.

 

[god's_pawn]

Before I respond, I would first like to ask what exactly (and in detail) are your arguments against the King being God. Considering Jesus' other teachings, it seems to me the simpler explanation would be the traditional views. Thus by Occam's Razor I think it better to stick with the tradition understand unless a valid objection can be seen. Or, to borrow the old adage, "If it isn't broke, don't fix it."

 

[Glass*Soul]

Before I respond, I would first like to ask what exactly (and in detail) are your arguments against the King being God. Considering Jesus' other teachings, it seems to me the simpler explanation would be the traditional views. Thus by Occam's Razor I think it better to stick with the tradition understand unless a valid objection can be seen. Or, to borrow the old adage, "If it isn't broke, don't fix it."

The problem is, I think it's broke.

I don't know if we can use Occam's Razor on this. Occam's Razor does not compel us to choose the traditional solution because it is easier to do so, but the most parsimonious solution. It compels us to avoid adding unnecessary additional steps or additional players. That isn't something that impresses me as being particularly helpful in interpreting a parable.

On the other hand, choosing the traditional interpretation simply because it is traditional is a logical fallacy known as Appeal to Tradition. We should probably avoid that one. Nor should we make the opposite mistake and make an Appeal to Novelty. My interpretation is not the right one because it is new to someone.

What are my arguments that the king is not God?

In Luke we find the interesting detail that the young nobleman is not yet king at the beginning of the story. He would like to be king and goes to a distant country to have himself appointed king. While he is away he is indeed appointed king despite the strong objections of his subjects who sent a petition against him. God, in most people's reckoning, is by nature King of Kings and requires no one to appoint him as such. There certainly is no country that God would go to where there exists someone of sufficient authority to appoint him as King.

Herod Archelaus, however, did precisely this. I will quote from this article from JewishEncyclopedia.com.

As soon as the tumult [the killing of 3000 Jews on the temple grounds] had been somewhat allayed, Archelaus hastened to Rome to secure the required confirmation of his succession from Augustus. He found that he had to encounter opposition from two sides. His brother Antipas, supported by many members of the Herodian house resident in Rome, claimed formal acknowledgment for Herod's second will, that nominated him king. Besides, the Jews of Palestine sent a deputation of fifty persons—who were supported by about 8,000 Jewish residents of Rome—and petitioned for the exclusion of the Herodians from any share whatever in the government of the land, and for the incorporation of Judea in the province of Syria.

Sound familiar? Young nobleman. Goes to another country to be appointed king. The subjects send a petition opposing him. Remember, this is all current events in Jesus' day. Everyone he's talking to knows this story.

Now we find out that the newly appointed king is a real money-grubber, an extractor of profit who admits of himself that he reaps where he has not sown.

Contrast this with Jesus' descriptions in Matthew 6 of the Father who provides food and garments of unparalleled beauty to creatures who neither sow nor reap.

“Therefore I tell you, do not worry about your life, what you will eat or drink; or about your body, what you will wear. Is not life more than food, and the body more than clothes? Look at the birds of the air; they do not sow or reap or store away in barns, and yet your heavenly Father feeds them. Are you not much more valuable than they? Can any one of you by worrying add a single hour to your life?

“And why do you worry about clothes? See how the flowers of the field grow. They do not labor or spin. Yet I tell you that not even Solomon in all his splendor was dressed like one of these. If that is how God clothes the grass of the field, which is here today and tomorrow is thrown into the fire, will he not much more clothe you—you of little faith? So do not worry, saying, ‘What shall we eat?’ or ‘What shall we drink?’ or ‘What shall we wear?’ For the pagans run after all these things, and your heavenly Father knows that you need them. But seek first his kingdom and his righteousness, and all these things will be given to you as well.

Therefore do not worry about tomorrow, for tomorrow will worry about itself. Each day has enough trouble of its own.

Jesus describes the Father as being unreservedly generous--so much so that we need not worry or run after the things we need.

Yet in the parable of the talents, the servants of the king are forced to run madly after profit like modern day Wall Street derivatives traders, motivated by fear. And one poor man has becomes so paralyzed by fear that he actually buries the money he has been given to invest. That is the act of someone breaking down under the pressure.

Again, contrast this parable to the story of Lazarus the beggar from Luke 16.

“There was a rich man who was dressed in purple and fine linen and lived in luxury every day. At his gate was laid a beggar named Lazarus, covered with sores and longing to eat what fell from the rich man’s table. Even the dogs came and licked his sores.

“The time came when the beggar died and the angels carried him to Abraham’s side. The rich man also died and was buried. In Hades, where he was in torment, he looked up and saw Abraham far away, with Lazarus by his side. So he called to him, ‘Father Abraham, have pity on me and send Lazarus to dip the tip of his finger in water and cool my tongue, because I am in agony in this fire.’

“But Abraham replied, ‘Son, remember that in your lifetime you received your good things, while Lazarus received bad things, but now he is comforted here and you are in agony.

It is not rich man who was honored in this tale, but the beggar who was unable to reap or to sow or to contribute to his own needs in any way, let alone enrich another through shrewd investments. Yet Abrahan comforts him.

Now back to Herod Archelaus. He launched a massive military operation to mop up those who had opposed him while he was in Rome seeking to be made king. Ultimately, two thousand people were crucified. And as for the one servant who failed to impress monetarily? I will quote again from the article I linked above.

He deposed the high priest Joezer on his return from Rome, not in obedience to popular complaint, but for a money consideration. Joezer's brother was his successor, although the latter was of exactly the same type. Indeed, Archelaus, in his short reign, deposed three high priests for purposes of profit. Against this serious list of evils there is hardly anything good to set in contrast, beyond perhaps the fact that he inherited from his father a certain love of splendor and a taste for building. He restored the royal palace at Jericho in magnificent style, surrounding it with groves of palms; and also founded a city, that he called in his own honor Archelais.

This is the story that Jesus told, so very succinctly. It must have been dangerous to tell it, even in the terms he used. So, it was important enough to take that risk. Why? He wanted to warn his followers of the stark realities they would face as they followed his teachings, and to starkly contrast the behavior of Archelaus with what he was teaching them about the Father. They would be going against the grain to such a degree that they might make people like Archelaus take notice, someone who could effect a cruel extraction even from those who already had nothing if it would turn him a dime.

So, as I said, the problem is I think it's broke.

If Christians teach that this parable is descriptive of God and how we should feel and behave toward him, we are getting it precisely backwards. We will approach our God not as the generous clothier of the grasses of the field and comforter of the broken that Jesus described him to be, but as if he were a vindictive tartar.

That will affect how we live out what we perceive as kingdom values.

That will in turn affect our fellow human beings to the ill.

And THAT is of interest to this atheist.

 

[Glass*Soul]

Oh my.
That was long.

Well, you asked for detail. LOL

 

[jacks]

The first part of the verse tells us it is an analogy for the "kingdom of heaven." Mathew 25:1 says “At that time the kingdom of heaven will be like ten virgins who took their lamps and went out to meet the bridegroom." Then continuing the analogy he begins in 25:14 (where you start your quote) with “Again, it will be like a man going on a journey, who called his servants and entrusted his wealth to them."

So I believe this is an indication that the whole chapter is trying to illustrate the kingdom of heaven not a literal earthly king. Though I must admit I've never been crazy about that parable either.

 

[Glass*Soul]

The first part of the verse tells us it is an analogy for the "kingdom of heaven." Mathew 25:1 says “At that time the kingdom of heaven will be like ten virgins who took their lamps and went out to meet the bridegroom." Then continuing the analogy he begins in 25:14 (where you start your quote) with “Again, it will be like a man going on a journey, who called his servants and entrusted his wealth to them."

So I believe this is an indication that the whole chapter is trying to illustrate the kingdom of heaven not a literal earthly king. Though I must admit I've never been crazy about that parable either.

I think some of the parables look at the kingdom from the outside and some of them look at the outside world from within the kingdom. Some of them are cautionary tales as to the reality that the kingdom will have to survive beside or parallel to. The kingdom is like this: sometimes the bad guys will beat you up or kill you. Still in? Join the kingdom.

Something like that.

My theory is that the more humble the main character in a parable is, the more likely it is to represent the Father. Jesus was trying to get people to re-imagine God.

If you took this story out of the Luke and just stood it up on its own next to an historical account of Herod Archelaus, it matches perfectly. Is a character who is, at least, indistinguishable from Herod Archelaus a good model for describing what the Father is like? If he is, and there is a God like that, we're in trouble. If there isn't a God, but we think there is and we think he is like Herod Archelaus, we're still in trouble because we are going to reflect those values among our fellow human beings. Atheist or theist, we all have a stake in the question.

 

[Glass*Soul]

The first part of the verse tells us it is an analogy for the "kingdom of heaven." Mathew 25:1 says “At that time the kingdom of heaven will be like ten virgins who took their lamps and went out to meet the bridegroom." Then continuing the analogy he begins in 25:14 (where you start your quote) with “Again, it will be like a man going on a journey, who called his servants and entrusted his wealth to them."

So I believe this is an indication that the whole chapter is trying to illustrate the kingdom of heaven not a literal earthly king. Though I must admit I've never been crazy about that parable either.

Oh, and one other thing I would like to add. If the parable is not about Herod Archelaus alone, but has a spiritual meaning as well, it makes more sense that it is about, as Jesus terms it in the parable of the sower, "the evil one", The one who reaps where he does not sow.

That same day Jesus went out of the house and sat by the lake. Such large crowds gathered around him that he got into a boat and sat in it, while all the people stood on the shore. Then he told them many things in parables, saying: “A farmer went out to sow his seed. As he was scattering the seed, some fell along the path, and the birds came and ate it up. Some fell on rocky places, where it did not have much soil. It sprang up quickly, because the soil was shallow. But when the sun came up, the plants were scorched, and they withered because they had no root. Other seed fell among thorns, which grew up and choked the plants. Still other seed fell on good soil, where it produced a crop—a hundred, sixty or thirty times what was sown. Whoever has ears, let them hear.” The disciples came to him and asked, “Why do you speak to the people in parables?”
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. This is why I speak to them in parables:
“Though seeing, they do not see;
though hearing, they do not hear or understand.”

. . . .

“Listen then to what the parable of the sower means: When anyone hears the message about the kingdom and does not understand it, the evil one comes and snatches away what was sown in their heart.”

The sower sows everywhere. The evil one snatches away where he has not sown.



You know, I wonder if the saying, "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," was something that Archelaus was actually known to have repeated. If so, Jesus clues his disciples in with his reply as to a good reason to be cagey, being that Archelaus is a merciless brute, while turning His own saying around on him. That's pretty much speculation on my part and doesn't go very far toward proving my point, but it's interesting to ponder. At any rate...Antipas had John the Baptist in jail. Archelaus had lined the roads with Jews on crosses. So. Yeah. Parables.

 

[bling]

I really appreciate you looking at these parables on your own and not taking the opinions of some commentary.

I wish I had you in one of my classes on parables.

I also agree with your thinking that the traditional interpretation is “broke”.

I do not have time to go over this with you but will try to take the time tomorrow.

 

[ForceofTime]

I've been having a discussion on the Parable of the Wedding Feast here. The main point I've been discussing about that parable is the identity of the king. I don't think the king represents God. I understand that this is a minority opinion.

I believe the same if true of the Parable of the Talents in Matthew 25, and I think it is actually more obvious and demonstrable in this parable. I would be very interested to get any feedback on this, so my question again is:

• Who is the king in this parable?

I think the king is Herod Archelaus. The Parable of the Talents is a warning as to how dark things can get in the insatiable world of riches and politics and that Christ's kingdom will be existing along side and amidst this world.

Matthew is my favorite Gospel, but Luke's telling of this parable in chapter 19 actually makes it more clear that the values of this king are not good ones. Sorry for the length of this topic but I want to post this telling of the parable too, because having them side-by-side actually makes my point clearer. The first parable feels a little ambiguous, but the second one is more pointedly like the story of Archelaus and depicts him as even more money-grubbing and gruesome.

You will notice I bolded two similar passages in the two tellings. This is what first began me thinking that the king in this parable was not God. Who is it that reaps where he did not sow? Is it God? To answer that we can look at a parable that is actually explained by Christ. It is in Matthew 13: The parable of the Sower. In the parable of the sower, the sower can't reap where he hasn't sown. He's sown everywhere, even on the path and on the rocks. It is "the evil one" who reaps where he has not sown. I will quote verse 19:


Further evidence that the parable of the talents can be used to interpret the parable of the sower is in verse 11-13:


This exact same saying is repeated by the king in the Parable of the Talents in both Matthew and Luke.

This isn't a saying that expresses kingdom values. It is warning. A reason to be careful and to speak in parables. There are evil ones about who will extract everything from you they can and when they cannot extract anything further will extract your very life. It is not necessary to make oneself utterly vulnerable to them unless one's values absolutely demand it.


What do you think? Have I made a valid point?

No.

Ironically, you have committed the same error the last servant made. He believed the King to be something He was not (which the servant knew to be false in the first place). The King called him on the lie and then gave the servant punishment based on what the servant himself believed it should be: harsh and severe.

 

[Glass*Soul]

I really appreciate you looking at these parables on your own and not taking the opinions of some commentary.

I wish I had you in one of my classes on parables.

I also agree with your thinking that the traditional interpretation is “broke”.

I do not have time to go over this with you but will try to take the time tomorrow.

Thanks, bling. I look forward to your reply.

 

[god's_pawn]

The problem is, I think it's broke.

I don't know if we can use Occam's Razor on this. Occam's Razor does not compel us to choose the traditional solution because it is easier to do so, but the most parsimonious solution. It compels us to avoid adding unnecessary additional steps or additional players. That isn't something that impresses me as being particularly helpful in interpreting a parable.

On the other hand, choosing the traditional interpretation simply because it is traditional is a logical fallacy known as Appeal to Tradition. We should probably avoid that one. Nor should we make the opposite mistake and make an Appeal to Novelty. My interpretation is not the right one because it is new to someone.

What are my arguments that the king is not God?

In Luke we find the interesting detail that the young nobleman is not yet king at the beginning of the story. He would like to be king and goes to a distant country to have himself appointed king. While he is away he is indeed appointed king despite the strong objections of his subjects who sent a petition against him. God, in most people's reckoning, is by nature King of Kings and requires no one to appoint him as such. There certainly is no country that God would go to where there exists someone of sufficient authority to appoint him as King.

Herod Archelaus, however, did precisely this. I will quote from this article from JewishEncyclopedia.com.

Sound familiar? Young nobleman. Goes to another country to be appointed king. The subjects send a petition opposing him. Remember, this is all current events in Jesus' day. Everyone he's talking to knows this story.

Now we find out that the newly appointed king is a real money-grubber, an extractor of profit who admits of himself that he reaps where he has not sown.

Contrast this with Jesus' descriptions in Matthew 6 of the Father who provides food and garments of unparalleled beauty to creatures who neither sow nor reap.

Jesus describes the Father as being unreservedly generous--so much so that we need not worry or run after the things we need.

Yet in the parable of the talents, the servants of the king are forced to run madly after profit like modern day Wall Street derivatives traders, motivated by fear. And one poor man has becomes so paralyzed by fear that he actually buries the money he has been given to invest. That is the act of someone breaking down under the pressure.

Again, contrast this parable to the story of Lazarus the beggar from Luke 16.

It is not rich man who was honored in this tale, but the beggar who was unable to reap or to sow or to contribute to his own needs in any way, let alone enrich another through shrewd investments. Yet Abrahan comforts him.

Now back to Herod Archelaus. He launched a massive military operation to mop up those who had opposed him while he was in Rome seeking to be made king. Ultimately, two thousand people were crucified. And as for the one servant who failed to impress monetarily? I will quote again from the article I linked above.



This is the story that Jesus told, so very succinctly. It must have been dangerous to tell it, even in the terms he used. So, it was important enough to take that risk. Why? He wanted to warn his followers of the stark realities they would face as they followed his teachings, and to starkly contrast the behavior of Archelaus with what he was teaching them about the Father. They would be going against the grain to such a degree that they might make people like Archelaus take notice, someone who could effect a cruel extraction even from those who already had nothing if it would turn him a dime.

So, as I said, the problem is I think it's broke.

If Christians teach that this parable is descriptive of God and how we should feel and behave toward him, we are getting it precisely backwards. We will approach our God not as the generous clothier of the grasses of the field and comforter of the broken that Jesus described him to be, but as if he were a vindictive tartar.

That will affect how we live out what we perceive as kingdom values.

That will in turn affect our fellow human beings to the ill.

And THAT is of interest to this atheist.

Oh, goodness, this is quite the argument and there is much to consider. Nonetheless, I asked for it and you seem a bit more sincere that most atheists I've had discussions with so I'll do what I can in response.

In the first place, you consider the similarities with the parable and the story of Herod Archelaus. The similarity is indeed remarkable and quite honestly makes sense. Jesus' parables were not just random stories, they were supposed to make sense. It seems perfectly logical to me that He would take advantage of such a story. The nobleman who went to be made king, in the case of the parable, would not refer to God, but to Jesus. This makes sense because He was sent to earth to take the judgement for our sins, and then only afterwards did God make Him king over creation (cf. Luke 20:41-44). The citizens who send a delegation after the nobleman would then represent whose who do not want Jesus to be king, yet despite their desire, He becomes king anyway (cf. Romans 14:11).

Secondly, you mention the apparent "money-grubber" tendencies of King Herod. Now here we get into an issue that few Christians, if any, really understand the reasoning for. To borrow from Bishop and Theologian Dr. N.T. Wright, God is going to "put the world to rights someday." What he means by this is that all the problems we see today are going to be fixed. The interesting thing about this, is that it's already a work in progress. How so, you ask, when there is still so much that is wrong? Well, it seems as though God has chosen to do this whole "making right" thing through Christians. Basically, we have a part to play in the fixing effort. Granted, God can do this in a moment, and yet, for some reason, He doesn't and instead gives us the chance to do so. He lets us do some of the sowing and even some of the reaping. What I find to be rather ironic about the parable, is that it uses the term "talents" for the money. I believe these "money-talents" also represent our "ability-talents". Thus, those who use their abilities (that God has given them) to make the world a better place are rewarded for doing so. Likewise, those who recognize that God can do it all Himself (reaping where He does not sow) and so do nothing, are worthy of punishment.

This is actually demonstrated by the story you brought up about the rich man and Lazarus. The rich man had the ability to help Lazarus (make the world right), yet did not do so. Things were still made right for Lazarus (he was cared for by Father Abraham), but the rich man suffered for his failure to participate in the operation. As stated above, I don't know why God has chosen to work this way. Apparently He is better glorified in this way, and apparently that is better for the the rest of us to. Is there a better way? Honestly, I don't know, but I would guess not (despite how bad that may sound). It seems to me that if God's glorification is the highest good (and not just for Him), then He would pick the best way possible to do it.

I think the other issues you mentioned can be solved in taking the above and doing a little critical thinking in applying it. As a final note, however, I will mention that Jesus didn't speak in parables in order to make it easier to understand. In fact, it's quite the opposite. He spoke in parables in order to prevent some people from understanding. As is the case above, I don't know entirely why He would do this (I have some theories, but I'm not sure they're strong enough for me to argue for them yet), but He Himself confirms this (Matthew 13:10-17).

I hope this helps, though I wager it will not (nothing against you, of course, but like I said, it's supposed to be confusing). If you would like further clarification or if you have further questions, I will be more than happy to help. It's nice to discuss such things with someone who does not (at least not openly) try to make me look stupid at every chance possible. It gets old after a while.

 

[hedrick]

The king who went to a distant country is certainly intended to make us think of Herod. The historical background is just too close.

However parables aren't allegories. There is no reason to identify the king with anyone, God or otherwise. The parables show us something about how the world operates. That is then compared with God. Sometimes it's "if this is what an earthly king would do, God would even more so." Sometimes it's a contrast between human behavior and God's.

So basically I would deny that the king is to be identified as God. However depending upon the parable that king's behavior may well be an illustration of how God will behave.

I believe the view that parables aren't allegories is pretty typical of critical scholarship.

 

[Radagast]

I think the king is Herod Archelaus. The Parable of the Talents is a warning as to how dark things can get in the insatiable world of riches and politics and that Christ's kingdom will be existing along side and amidst this world.

That's an unorthodox interpretation. The standard Christian interpretation is that the king is God.

 

[ForceofTime]

I think the king is Herod Archelaus. The Parable of the Talents is a warning as to how dark things can get in the insatiable world of riches and politics and that Christ's kingdom will be existing along side and amidst this world.

First of all, if we say the king is Archelaus, then the opening lines of the Matthew passage could be read: "For the kingdom of heaven is as" Herod Archelaus. Why would Jesus even hint at the idea that the king of the heavenly kingdom could be Herod?

Secondly, if we take context in both accounts, they in no way point to the possibility of Herod. Looking specifically at both books one can find examples.

Matthew

1. If we are to say that Archelaus is the king here, who would truly be the ideal servant? The one who buried the talent in the earth? But Christians are told not to hide their light under a bed or a bushel (Lk. 8:16), so how do they reconcile?

2. Chapter 25 contains three parts and from those three are centerpieces upon which each of them hinge. They are: Bridegroom (vv. 1-13), Lord of the servants (vv. 14-30), and the Son of Man (vv.31-46). All three are clearly very similar in subject and content. If Archelaus is the lord of the servants in the second, then the possibility that he is also the bridegroom and the son of man must be considered, but this is obviously erroneous.

3. Chapter 24 provides the foundation in vv. 42-51, wherein we find in verse 42: "Watch therefore: for ye know not what hour your Lord doth come." Is He really implying Archelaus (or something evil) here too?

Luke

1. Just prior to telling the parable, Jesus had an encounter with Zacchaeus, where we see the following: "And Zacchaeus stood, and said unto the Lord; Behold, Lord, the half of my goods I give to the poor; and if I have taken any thing from any man by false accusation, I restore him fourfold." Is this unrelated to the parable? Did Zacchaeus bury his money in the ground, or in this case, in a napkin like the wicked servant in v.28? Yet we see here that Jesus, just like the Lord in the parable, is pleased when the money is used.

2. The introduction to the parable reads: "And as they heard these things, he added and spake a parable, because he was nigh to Jerusalem, and because they thought that the kingdom of God should immediately appear."
Note that it points out two things: First, Jesus was near to Jerusalem and second, the Kingdom of God. When bookmarked with verse 38, this establishes that Jesus, not Archelaus, is the subject of the parable in no uncertain terms.

Thirdly, How would a parable designed to provide an example (or warning as you suggest?) of the Kingdom of Heaven benefit by comparing it to darkness and evil? In fact, where would the likeness of Heaven be if not in the King?

 

[hedrick]

First of all, if we say the king is Archelaus, then the opening lines of the Matthew passage could be read: "For the kingdom of heaven is as" Herod Archelaus. Why would Jesus even hint at the idea that the king of the heavenly kingdom could be Herod?

He isn't. Again, it isn't an allegory. "The Kingdom of God is as..." introduces a story that tells us something about the Kingdom, not by a simple identification of people in the story with God, etc, but rather by "here's how it works with an earthly king" and then comparing it with God and his kingdom.

 

[ForceofTime]

He isn't. Again, it isn't an allegory. "The Kingdom of God is as..." introduces a story that tells us something about the Kingdom, not by a simple identification of people in the story with God, etc, but rather by "here's how it works with an earthly king" and then comparing it with God and his kingdom.

Since the rules forbid me to press the matter with you here, I do hope you will consider presenting your views to me in PM as I am very curious to know.

 

[Glass*Soul]

I appreciate everyone's response so far, and I am carefully thinking about what each person has added. I'm in the midst of a little spate of long work days, so I hope you all won't mind if I can't answer everyone thoroughly today. I will reply to each post in time.

 

[Glass*Soul]

No.

Ironically, you have committed the same error the last servant made. He believed the King to be something He was not (which the servant knew to be false in the first place). The King called him on the lie and then gave the servant punishment based on what the servant himself believed it should be: harsh and severe.

I think we may agree on an interesting point. I'll try to explain this afternoon.

 

[bling]

A few questions about the Parable:

1. Where the servants given different kinds of talents (bags of money like one gold, one silver and one copper) or where the talents all the same?

2. What is the determining factor on how much each servant was given of the exact same thing?

3. Where any servants given none?

4. Where the people given talents strangers, slaves, or committed in some way?

5. Did the Master reward these servants with this money or was this money still the Master’s?

6. Where the servant being compensated out of the money given them or in a different was and was that at different rates?

7. How would you feel about your employer giving you lots of responsibility?

8. Where the servants “told by the master” to do something?

9. Did any of the servants that put the money to work fail (loss some of the money)? Could they have lost some of the money? If they had lost some of the money would they have been punished?

10. Which is harder: “handing the money over to money changers and allowing them to put it to work or finding an excellent hiding place late at night and digging a hole to bury the money”?

11. Would a servant really have to “work” if he just gave the money over to some money changers?

12. “Hope” is desired expectation, so which of these servants had “hope” concerning the master?


These are some questions to get you thinking. They will also point out some issues with the traditional answers.

 

[hedrick]

Since the rules forbid me to press the matter with you here, I do hope you will consider presenting your views to me in PM as I am very curious to know.

I'm certainly willing to answer questions via PM, but I wouldn't think this would be an area where the rules are terribly constricting. For a good review of interpretation of the parables, see The Parables of Jesus: Allegory, Metaphor, or SomethingÂ[bless and do not curse]Else? « Sean's New Testament Blog. You'll note that the allegorical approach that lies behind many of the responses here hasn't been the dominant model used by scholars since about 1888. While conservative Christians do at times reject scholarship since the 16th Cent, I'm not aware of this being an area where there is significant controversy. Indeed one could argue that it is precisely the Reformers that began the move away from allegory, though I'm not sure they actually applied that to the parables.