The Parable of the Talents

[Kaitzilla]

I came across this weeks ago when I got into an argument with someone.

First, the story, The Parable of Talents:

Matthew 25:14-30King James Version (KJV)

14 For the kingdom of heaven is as a man travelling into a far country, who called his own servants, and delivered unto them his goods.

15 And unto one he gave five talents, to another two, and to another one; to every man according to his several ability; and straightway took his journey.

16 Then he that had received the five talents went and traded with the same, and made them other five talents.

17 And likewise he that had received two, he also gained other two.

18 But he that had received one went and digged in the earth, and hid his lord's money.

19 After a long time the lord of those servants cometh, and reckoneth with them.

20 And so he that had received five talents came and brought other five talents, saying, Lord, thou deliveredst unto me five talents: behold, I have gained beside them five talents more.

21 His lord said unto him, Well done, thou good and faithful servant: thou hast been faithful over a few things, I will make thee ruler over many things: enter thou into the joy of thy lord.

22 He also that had received two talents came and said, Lord, thou deliveredst unto me two talents: behold, I have gained two other talents beside them.

23 His lord said unto him, Well done, good and faithful servant; thou hast been faithful over a few things, I will make thee ruler over many things: enter thou into the joy of thy lord.

24 Then he which had received the one talent came and said, Lord, I knew thee that thou art an hard man, reaping where thou hast not sown, and gathering where thou hast not strawed:

25 And I was afraid, and went and hid thy talent in the earth: lo, there thou hast that is thine.

26 His lord answered and said unto him, Thou wicked and slothful servant, thou knewest that I reap where I sowed not, and gather where I have not strawed:

27 Thou oughtest therefore to have put my money to the exchangers, and then at my coming I should have received mine own with usury.

28 Take therefore the talent from him, and give it unto him which hath ten talents.

29 For unto every one that hath shall be given, and he shall have abundance: but from him that hath not shall be taken away even that which he hath.

30 And cast ye the unprofitable servant into outer darkness: there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth.

A talent is 75 pounds of silver or gold. Call it a million dollars.

I took the side of the 3rd servant.
The person I was arguing with took the side of the master.



Each according to his abilities huh?
Guess not everyone is created equal.

Clearly these 3 servants are slaves right?

The master admitted he reaps what he doesn't sow.
He's harsh.
The 3rd slave is clearly afraid of him.
Maybe he didn't like what the other 2 slaves did to double their money. (probably buy and sell more slaves)

Should have put the talent in the bank to earn interest?
Isn't that usury?

29 For unto every one that hath shall be given, and he shall have abundance: but from him that hath not shall be taken away even that which he hath.

The rich get richer and the poor get poorer? gah!


So I looked around, and it seems most Christian websites take the side of the master.
https://bible.org/seriespage/27-parable-talents-matthew-2514-30-luke-1912-28

The third slave is lazy, and thus useless, as opposed to being hard-working, and therefore useful. He does not “go to work” with his master’s money, over a lengthy period of time, and thus make a profit. He does no work for a lengthy period of time and thus is useless.

What, then, is the root of this third slave’s problem? I believe it is his view of his master, and thus the work his master has assigned.

Darn those lazy slaves

We should be careful to recognize that in this parable the mere possession of a talent is not evidence of salvation. The one-talent slave is clearly not saved; he is condemned to hell.

All of eternity away from God's light because he ... did nothing.
And I thought the way to heaven was through faith alone, not a result of works?

I wouldn't mind so much if this was the old Testament, but it shows up in the New Testament, twice!



Am I completely wrong?
Is the master in the right and the 3rd servant in the wrong?

Would appreciate opinions.

 

[Narz]

When I have too much time on my hands & want to make sense of nonsense I pause to listen to the ramblings of madmen on the streets on in the subway but I suppose trying to decipher religious goobledegook is safer & smells better.

The reason the modern large religions evolved was because they were useful & needed to make the minions of the world (almost everyone) accept their place : The meek shall inherit the Earth, do your duty with no thought of reward, God is watching your good deeds even if you lot in life is crap so don't revolt, just keep up the good work It's a control & soothing mechanism for the masses. If you want to try to understand the human mind, behavior, what constitutes a good or happy life look to actual studies of human behavior & mood, the latest neuroscience not to a random hodge-podge of stories mushed together thousands of years ago.

The Bible is full of absolutely horrible stories, Lot's ordeal comes to mind. When in doubt think of the moral lesson the holy book is trying to teach you & do the opposite (instead of mindless obedience - thinking disobedience; instead of tiring service without thought of reward, think of how to serve most efficiently so one can enjoy this life).

 

[Borachio]

It's a good parable in my opinion. Though I've jokingly argued several times that it represents a defence of the capitalist system as a whole.

In fact, I think it's quite an easy parable to "read". But to do so, you've got to take talents as meaning literally talents: those natural talents that enable you to sing, dance, draw or tell jokes. Or whatever.

Everybody's got some talents for some things, but it would be foolish, I think, not to recognize that some people have naturally more talents, or a more significant talent for one thing, than other people.

But there are some people (perhaps everyone to some extent) who squander their talents. Who, as it were, bury their talents in the ground, and don't develop their natural gifts to their full potential.

As for the "master", I think that's simply God. And the final accounting is just a reference to the Day of Judgement.

I don't think the parable is about much else. And it seems to me to be pretty standard fare for the monotheistic religions.

Whether I actually buy into the whole model is another matter, of course.

 

[SS-18 ICBM]

Wealth should be put to work, not languish somewhere forgotten. That's just good economic policy.

Also, I bet the last servant sucks at SMAC.

 

[CavLancer]

Don't think its money that God is giving. Its a spiritual thing, and whether one grows spiritually and passes it on or not.

 

[brennan]

This is just filthy borgeoise propaganda.

In the original uncensored version there is a fourth servant who is given four talents, but he invests in a Samaritan pension scheme and loses everything. When the day of the reckoning comes he finds out that the small print requires his home and all his possessions to be sold and his family sold into slavery. He dies of a particularly savage lashing 7 months later chained to an oar in a galley.

 

[Sommerswerd]

I always interpreted this as being a justification for "the rich get richer and the poor get poorer" and for the idea that you have to do the best with what you have rather than whine that soemone else got more than you or that someone else benefits from your hard work.

Like Narz says, its basically to justify the idea that people should accept their lot in life without complaint, work hard without making any fuss and wait for god to reward them after they die.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

The master is an abject failure. The first servant received five talents and the second servant two, based on the master's assessment of their abilities. They both doubled what they had in the same period of time, so their abilities were clearly equal. Given this failure, the master's assessment of the third servant's abilities is obviously suspect, and the performance of that servant seems just as likely to be a result of the master's failure to motivate him as it is to be an indication of the master's assessment of his ability being correct.

 

[Sommerswerd]

The master is an abject failure. The first servant received five talents and the second servant two, based on the master's assessment of their abilities. They both doubled what they had in the same period of time, so their abilities were clearly equal. Given this failure, the master's assessment of the third servant's abilities is obviously suspect, and the performance of that servant seems just as likely to be a result of the master's failure to motivate him as it is to be an indication of the master's assessment of his ability being correct.

Blasphemy... god cant be wrong

 

[Timsup2nothin]

Blasphemy... god cant be wrong

Who interpreted the master in the parable as god?

 

[Sommerswerd]

Who interpreted the master in the parable as god?

"Matthew" in verse 14

 

[Archbob]

The master is an abject failure. The first servant received five talents and the second servant two, based on the master's assessment of their abilities. They both doubled what they had in the same period of time, so their abilities were clearly equal. Given this failure, the master's assessment of the third servant's abilities is obviously suspect, and the performance of that servant seems just as likely to be a result of the master's failure to motivate him as it is to be an indication of the master's assessment of his ability being correct.

What abilities of the third servant? He dug a whole and hid this talent there. He did do anything with it. He should have just put it on deposit with the bank so he could get it back with interest.

The first two servents aren't the main point of the parable. They did good with little things so they were both put in charge of large things(cities).

And the last part of it really means that if you don't do anything with the talents given to you, then even what you have will be taken away from you.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

"Matthew" in verse 14

"Kingdom of heaven" = "God"?

Is that in the glossary at the back of the book?

As to the talent buried in the hole...had there been a market collapse and a run on the bank, would the change in outcomes elevate the third servant into a genius of prognostication?

I'm fine with "reward is earned through bold action that leads to good outcomes," by the way, as opposed to being a devoted reader of Guide to Prosperity by A Squirrel, but let's not read too much into this parable.

Or is it possible that a parable has as many meanings as readings?

 

[Archbob]

As to the talent buried in the hole...had there been a market collapse and a run on the bank, would the change in outcomes elevate the third servant into a genius of prognostication?

I think your reading into this too hard. This parable is not about economics. Its alluding your spiritual talents and spreading the Gospel, not actual money.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

I think your reading into this too hard. This parable is not about economics. Its alluding your spiritual talents and spreading the Gospel, not actual money.

And if there is a violent purge of all those who believe and they are put to death only those who "buried their talent in the ground" will survive to spread the word to a future generation.

Are you sure this parable doesn't apply to economics?

 

[Archbob]

No,
Its not a economic parable.

You realize this is God right? he could easily prevent such a purge.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

No,
Its not a economic parable.

You realize this is God right? he could easily prevent such a purge.

I didn't ask if it was "an economic parable." I do not really think there is any such thing as "an economic parable." I think that lots of parables, including this one, can be applied to economics.

As to whether "he could easily prevent such a purge," the existence of parables in the bible suggests that whether he could is nowhere near the issue of whether he would...since he could spread the gospel himself just as easily as urging that it be done through the use of parables, yes?

 

[Sommerswerd]

"Kingdom of heaven" = "God"?

Is that in the glossary at the back of the book?

Well, working off the assumption that you consider me to be an acceptable authority on (limited) biblical interpretation (rather than post a link to some random religious website or online biblical glossary, whatever... that I know good and well you won't consider a legitimate authority anyway)...

Basically... yes going off what the story says... the kingdom etc is like the rich master man who gives them the money and expects them to do something with it to gain his good graces, and if they don't then they can go to hell, get cast out whatever.

So yeah, I see the rich master symbolizing god and when the narrator (Jesus IIRC) says "Look guys, getting into heaven/gods good graces is like this story I am going to tell you about a rich man and his employees" I see the rich man as symbolizing god and the "kingdom" as heaven or his good graces, something along those lines.

Anyway, why does it matter to you to argue that the "master" isn't god? You want the story to be purely about economics? Why? Its a story in the bible man...being purportedly told by Jesus, its all supposed to be about god in some way, isn't it? I mean the Romans handpicked all the books and verses.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

I kind of operate from the idea that a parable does not have a fixed meaning.

 

[Manfred Belheim]

Am I completely wrong?
Is the master in the right and the 3rd servant in the wrong?

Would appreciate opinions.

I agree entirely with your assessment. Yet another example of a so-called moral example in the Bible which is anything but. I agree it does seem a bit old testament-y as well.