Meanings from parables

What strikes me about this parable is that the first two servants are eager to do something to please their master while the third is afraid of the master’s wrath and believes he is a “hard man”. The third servant freely admits he is afraid of the master which tells me he has no idea of the real nature of the master - just what he has been falsely told. The kingdom of the master (Jesus) is one of peace, joy and love - not something to be feared.
Parables are a special teaching tool that Jesus uses to inform people about His kingdom. Parables use the psychology of how we process information so my question is - why is there so little interest in psychology on this forum? Don’t people consider psychology real science?

I think historically the hard sciences have been better represented here than the soft sciences. We have had a few posts on evolutionary psychology that were contentious, so there is that. But, I think overall most are quite happy with psychology. So, perhaps if you have some topics along those lines, you can post and plow untilled ground.
I think your traditional interpretation is still the most likely, but if you take a contrarian approach and hold the master to be hard and selfish, perhaps an illusion to Satan as the ruler of worldly things, then perhaps you can see the alternative interpretation as having some validity, where the last servant acted most ethically. It is a strange parable in a sense, glorifying profit and material gains, even though they are a metaphor for spiritual blessings, and showing the master as greedy and demanding of works, valuing the workers/slaves only by how they benefit him materially.

Be the good news, be incarnational and it will spread. Don’t and you’ll be miserable, unfulfilled, fearful, ashamed and guilt ridden, repressed in that and projecting hostility. Jesus was dealing with extremely thick people. Still is. It has nothing to do with afterlife. Everything to do with life.

How do you know he has no idea? And he does throw him out into darkness and cold at the end, which only tells me the servant was correct.

I’m not at all sure the master in the parable is Jesus, there’s other way to interpret this. Also, aren’t we, as Christians, meant to fear God?

Why not start your own thread, if there’s something that interests you in particular?

But to that point, I like the interpretations described in the source named by jpm in Biblical Archaeology. They have gone, when possible, to original text and translations and view them as having been told by Jesus when he addressed all people, and were to be understood by all. I quote them…“They did not communicate a hidden meaning that only the initiated insider could discover through complicated allegorical interpretation”.
In fact, their research indicates that our allegorical interpretations of their meanings was almost always added at a later stage of transmission.

But even if true, your point relates to the importance of attitude. At the end of the day, attitude is a clear choice we have. We see examples of poor attitude everyday, especially on these Forums.

Note that “those enemies of mine” who are “slain before me” (Lk. 19:27) are the resentful citizens who say “we do not want this man to reign over us” in Lk. 19:14. Luke includes the additional incident that the nobleman was going away to receive a kingdom, whereas Matthew does not include that frame. Although the Zealots would have been rather unhappy with the positive picture of the absentee ruler, that part seems clearly directed at the sin of rejecting Jesus. (Given Jesus’ oral teaching, it is very likely that the parables were frequently taught in various settings with various spins on them; trying to identify either Matthew’s or Luke’s version as more original or some original lying behind both is likely based on a wrong concept of the stories’ history.)
As to the fate of the servants, Luke only says that what the unprofitable one had is given to the most profitable; Matthew adds that the unprofitable one is cast out into the outer darkness, where there is weeping and gnashing of teeth. Claiming that the third servant actually did well is rather difficult to justify. Usury was forbidden. However, what counts as usury? Not all lending is predatory, though our modern society does allow more predatory lending than it should. Culturally, lending to foreigners or for business would have been seen in a different light than extortionary rates charged to the poor. Also, Jesus was willing to have less than ethical characters come out ahead in parables, such as the dishonest steward. Making good use of what you have is a clear point of the two parables.

There is danger in trying to push every detail of a parable into a theological principle. I recall a video pushing a particular end-time interpretation where the narrators kept invoking a particular verse by number; looking it up proved it to be background detail in a parable and no good basis for what they were claiming.

1 Like

At least some of the parables were meant to deliver a truth though absurdity to the point being humorous. The responses to the dinner invitation were purposefully ridiculous.

Exactly.

I think that we should have a healthy respect for a being with the power to create our known universe -even one who says “come to me all who are weary and heavy laddened and I will give you peace”. If the third servant was the Pharisees and heard Jesus preach the gospel and still thought he was a hard man, they didn’t have “ears to hear”. I think I will start a separate post on psychology and theology thanks Marta.

Not in the ‘be afraid’ sense!

The most frequent mandate in the Bible is “Do not be afraid” or one of its several variations – “Fear not!”, “Be anxious for nothing”, “Fret not”, and the like.

 
I once read what was a good analogy of what it means for a Christian to fear God, but I probably cannot do it justice. Imagine a couple of climbers on a high mountain glacier being caught in a sudden severe snowstorm with blinding whiteout conditions. With crevasses around and being vulnerable, they needed shelter. Feeling their way along they shortly come upon an ice cave in which they have protection. Still respecting the storm and the glacier, they still have the excitement but not the ‘afraid’ kind of fear because they know they are safe.

I’ve shared this before, but similarly my mini-revelation on the fear of God was the first time I saw the Grand Canyon, where the awe of the sight is overwhelming, and you feel you should get on your hands and knees and crawl to edge of void.(Did I mention I am not real fond of heights?)

2 Likes

That’s a better analogy. :+1:

(I had a fever of maybe 104°F when I saw it and while the rest of the family went to Mesa Verde, I went to a clinic and then back to bed at the hotel. It could be a country western song: “I got my penicillin in Durango” :laughing:)

Jesus repeatedly called on people to make the most of spiritual opportunities. The tragedy of wasted opportunity is the theme of Jesus’ parable of the talents.

The parable of the talents illustrates four basic aspects of spiritual opportunity: the responsibility we receive, the reaction we have, the reckoning we face, and the reward we gain

The man was about to go on a journey for months or years. In order for his estate to be well managed in his absence, he called his own slaves and entrusted his possessions to them. The fact that these were his own slaves reinforces the idea that Jesus was illustrating the outward, organizational church, composed of those who allege to belong to Him, and not humanity in general

The numbers of talents given to the slaves have no significance in themselves but simply illustrate a wide range of responsibilities, from the very high and demanding to the relatively low and easy. It is significant, however, that the responsibilities were given to each according to his own ability. The owner knew his slaves intimately, and he entrusted each one only with the responsibility he reasonably could be expected to handle.

The slaves depict professed believers, members of the Lord’s visible church whom He has entrusted with various resources to use on His behalf until He returns.

Jesus mentions only three levels of responsibility, but those are suggestive of the extremely wide range of individual abilities among people, who vary greatly in natural talent, intellect, and other capabilities.

They also vary greatly in opportunity and privilege. Some church members have heard the gospel and studied Scripture since early childhood, whereas others know only the rudiments of the faith and have had little opportunity to learn more.

Those who are true believers are also given spiritual gifts that vary widely from person to person (Rom. 12:4–8; 1 Cor. 12:4–11). Some Christians are privileged to live and work closely with others of like faith and are continually encouraged and corrected by fellow believers.

Other Christians, however, are the only believers in their families or even in their community or town. God knows intimately the abilities, gifts, opportunities, and circumstances of every person, and He graciously assigns responsibilities accordingly.

The issue of the parable pertains to what each slave does with the fairly assessed responsibility he has been given. The noblest motive in the heart of a faithful servant would be to accomplish as much as possible for the sake of his master during the master’s absence. That was also the master’s desire: not equal return from each of his slaves but relatively equal effort according to ability

Although the slaves with the five and the two talents did not produce equal profits, they produced equal percentages of profit, doubling what they had been given. In the same way, Christians with different capabilities and opportunities may produce differing results while working with equal faithfulness and devotion. The Lord, therefore, assures His servants that “each will receive his own reward according to his own labor” (1 Cor. 3:8)

When the master called his servants together to settle the accounts, the first one reported, Master, you entrusted five talents to me; see, I have gained five more talents. The man was not boasting but simply relating the truth of the matter. There is no hint of pride or self-congratulation. He knew that everything he started with had been entrusted to him by his master and that he had only done what he should have done. He exhibited the attitude Jesus said every obedient disciple should have: “When you do all the things which are commanded you, say, ‘We are unworthy slaves; we have done only that which we ought to have done ” (Luke 17:10).

When the master said to him, “Well done, good and faithful slave,” he was commending the slave’s attitude more than just his accomplishment. He, first of all, commended the man’s excellent character, which expressed itself in excellent service.

Everyone will be equally perfect because perfection has no degrees. The difference will be in opportunities and levels of service. Just as the angels serve God in ranks, so will redeemed men and women, and the degree of their heavenly service will have been determined by the devotedness of their earthly service.

Jesus also mentions a second reward the master gives to the faithful slave: enter into the joy of your master. Not only will believers be rewarded in heaven with still greater opportunity for service, but they will even share the divine joy of their master. In addition to sharing the Lord’s divine sinlessness and holiness, they will also share His divine joy

The third slave, however, did not present the master with earnings but with an accusatory and self-serving excuse. Having done nothing with what he had been given, he said, “Master, I knew you to be a hard man, reaping where you did not sow, and gathering where you scattered no seed. And I was afraid, and went away and hid your talent in the ground; see, you have what is yours.”

Like the other two, that slave was identified as belonging to the master (v. 14), representative of his belonging to Christ’s church before the second coming. But in two distinct ways, he proved that his identification with Christ was superficial and did not involve genuine faith or regeneration.

First of all, he produced absolutely nothing with the talent he had been given and did not even make an attempt to use it for his master’s benefit and profit.

This slave does not represent an atheist or even an agnostic, because he recognized the master as his legitimate owner and no doubt made a pretense of honoring the master while he was away.

He did not misuse his talent on immoral and selfish pursuits like the prodigal son or embezzle it like the unmerciful servant of Matthew 18.

He simply disregarded the stewardship he had been given.

In much the same way, unbelieving church members live in the environment of God’s redeemed community and enjoy exposure to the teaching of His Word and the fellowship of His people. But in spite of their spiritual privilege, they make no positive response to the gospel and therefore can render no fruitful service.

Second, this slave demonstrated his counterfeit allegiance by deprecating his master’s character, accusing him of being a hard man, reaping where he did not sow, and gathering where he had scattered no seed. He charged his owner with being unmerciful and dishonest.

That slave represents the professing Christian whose limited knowledge of God leads him to conclude that He is distant, uncaring, unjust, and undependable. Instead of judging themselves in light of God’s inerrant Word, such people judge God in the light of their own perverted perceptions.

They not only justify themselves but do so at God’s expense.

Thanks for your thoughtful insight, Paul. Do you think we should infer any distinction between entrusting possessions that may be land rather than money? And if only money, does the management of that money mean investing it material (crops, agriculture, animals etc) or investing it as a lender?
I ask this because of the apparent culture of the era against gaining from lending. Usury is when you charge above-market rates, but lending in general may have been frowned upon.

So what are spiritual opportunities? For the pious?

Can they be shown? Pointed at? In the real world?

What resources do the pious have? To accomplish what for the master?

As above.

What does the fruitful service of the pious look like?

As above.

Could the pious not realise that they are actually unfruitful, unrighteous, because they are terrified of the master whom they know to be the hardest of men, because of their helplessly limited knowledge of God? And therefore engage very mainly in ritual and other group binding activity? Distant and uncaring from the needs of the world lying starving covered in sores outside their door?

This event occurred 1-2 weeks before Christ”s crucifixion. Are there estimates of the size/ratio of Jews to gentiles to new converts in the audience in Jericho then?

[quote=“Paul_Allen1, post:32, topic:49246”]
the degree of their heavenly service will have been determined by the devotedness of their earthly service.

But we all either receive Gods grace or we do not. All or none at the end of the day. And if the gift of money was a metaphor for an opportunity to place our faith in Him, you either do r you do not. There is no scale.

I think you probably intended these questions to be rhetorical, but they are worthy of more attention than rhetorical questions usually receive. If nothing else, by my engagement with them, they show up again in the thread, and also give opportunity for further “rehashing.”

The opportunities are nearly overwhelming; they’re everywhere. What needs do your neighbors1 have? Don’t know? The local newspaper is full of them. Still not sure, check a national paper. Or maybe better check an ethnic newspaper/podcast/activist group’s website. Your neighbor will clarify, if you ask honestly.

Yes.
Yes.
Yes.
One minute example is one local, rural elementary school where I’ve volunteered before and will again. For some reason, there are more families in serious situations, kids with unspecified special needs, and kids of families with uncertain documentation concentrated in that part of the district. I have worked with kids on learning their alphabet, listening to them read, supporting math learning, etc. The needs are profound. My “work” is barely perceptible. But Monday night I watched a bunch of kids I’d worked with years ago finish middle school and receive awards for good grades.

I have also spoken at my former church to encourage people to stop condemning their public schools in Focus-on-the-Family-fashion (although I didn’t mention that organization) and actually to get involved supporting children’s learning.
I am not a particularly effective activist unfortunately.

Time, money, social support and acceptance, stability, a home base from which to operate, normalcy, literacy, education, health, organizational skills, financial skills, safety, my white privilege, political power are a few of the resources “the pious” have.

However christians define the components of the Gospel, our witness to it is absolutely pointless, if we ignore the earthly needs of those we attempt to preach the Gospel to. We spend so much time bickering over theoretical minutiae, we fail to act faithfully or fruitfully. We make ourselves and our message irrelevant.

We could be serving “the impious” with those resources in ways that may feel risky, terribly risky (part of the point of the parable), working to change damaging systems, meeting individual needs. The list of ways we can obey the master’s commands to love our neighbor is so broad and long, there is some service every single one of us can render.

It usually doesn’t look like more than plodding and showing up, eating with people and listening openly to them talk and thinking hard about what they say, sometimes voting. It involves whatever skill set one has and the willingness to treat people with love and respect, even when you don’t like them.
It requires the understanding that our uncleanness comes from within; therefore we need not worry about whom we associate with or serve.

It mainly involves sharing our power, not only to serve, but to use our power to bring those who lack it into positions of power/leadership at every possible level.

I don’t think so.
One reason: If “the pious” were to see their master as terrifying, they should be obeying his commands to serve others, love their neighbors, etc, or fear the wrath of their master. So, if “the pious” can’t find intrinsic motivation, there is plenty of extrinsic motivation.

Another reason: Referring to the parable your questions help interpret, the last servant was wrong in his assessment of the master and (as I read it) treated the master with contempt that was based on his own mischaracterization of the master. If “the pious” disobey out of contempt of their master, their punishment is deserved.

Yet another reason:
This parable is part of a series of parables, all explaining the answer to the disciples questions in Matt. 24:1-3:

1 Jesus left the temple and was walking away when his disciples came up to him to call his attention to its buildings. 2 “Do you see all these things?” he asked. “Truly I tell you, not one stone here will be left on another; every one will be thrown down.”

3 As Jesus was sitting on the Mount of Olives, the disciples came to him privately. “Tell us,” they said, “when will this happen, and what will be the sign of your coming and of the end of the age?”

All of them emphasize remaining faithful to carry out the job Jesus has given the disciples (and those disciples who receive the message through them): preaching the gospel of the kingdom throughout the whole world, and obeying all Jesus’s commands. If one accepts the text as we have it (disputing this is a different conversation, please), Jesus backs up his command with the clear understanding of his authority to enforce his commands among “the pious”. Unfortunately, “we pious” often tend to direct our understanding of the promises of punishment for disobedience toward “the impious.”

Final reason (for now at least):
Jesus is nothing like the last servant’s description of him. God in the form of a man lived with his unwashed, impious creatures, not as a king to lord it over them or extract wealth from them, but as a humble, loving servant who washed and fed healed and taught them. He demonstrated the kind of street cred that communicates the Gospel and bring on the Kingdom of God. He showed us the method.

Because we’re highly skilled at insulating ourselves from others’ needs, sometimes we need to look harder, depending on our situations. It’s not hard to find the needs, but they are easy to forget or ignore. Part of our job is to take our blinders off.

1 Luke 10:28-37

4 Likes

This topic was automatically closed 6 days after the last reply. New replies are no longer allowed.