Although it may seem as if a horse is being beaten to death here, I have a question in reference to the "Parable of the Talents". Matt 25:14 is where it starts. This particular story is often used by the Borg to justify their insistence on field service, and each time I've read it and each time it was read to me, I always came away unsure as to the accuracy of the Borg's interpretation. The reason I am wondering about this scripture is because of the furror over the WT article condeming higher education. I'm wondering if anyone else sees the connection the way I do?
Parable of the Talents
by Frogleg 9 Replies latest watchtower bible
-
-
Leolaia
Of course the Society's interpretation has little to do with what the parable meant in its original context(s). In Matthew, the Parable of the Talents is the last of a triad of parables pertaining to the return of the Lord//the coming of the Son of Man//Judgment Day, embedded as it is within the escatological discourse (ch. 24-25). The parables are preceded by a discussion of the unexpected time of Judgment Day (v. 36-44) with the refrain, "Therefore you also must be ready; for the Son of Man is coming at an hour you do not expect". All three of the parables illustrate this basic concept. In particular, they illustrate the error of thinking that one can expect the time when the Lord returns; Matthew's revision of the eschatological discourse is likely intended to address the failed expectations of the parousia in the first century, as most of his additions and rephrasings have this purpose.
Thus, the Parable of the Faithful and Wise Servant in v. 45-51 draws on the OT story of Joseph and his readiness to prepare for famine (making it possible for him to dispense food during the seven years of famine), and contrasts the ideal Christian who follows this example with the "wicked servant" who does not prepare and who "says to himself, 'My master is delayed,' and begins to beat his fellow servants" (v. 48-49). The lesson is to be ready and not take an apparent delay (according to one's expectations) as an excuse for ill behavior. This addresses the late first-century disappointment in Jesus' non-return, which may have led to behavior that the author of Matthew viewed as unbecoming. The second parable, the Parable of the Ten Virgins (25:1-13), again addresses the theme of a delay, with the bridegroom not arriving until midnight (v. 5-6). This parable is unique to Matthew but resembles the language in Mark 13:35-37 (mentioning the coming of the master of the house at midnight when the disciples are asleep) Luke 12:35-36 (referring to "lamps" and waiting for the master to return from the "marriage feast") and Didache 16:1 (referring to "lamps" and the fact that the Lord comes "in an hour you do not know"). The lesson of this parable is again preparing adequately for the unexpected delay. Then, the Parable of the Talents (v. 14-30) construes the delay as an opportunity for investment, such that the foolish servants are the ones who fail to prepare for the future. As the parallel version in Luke puts it, "Why then did you not put my money in the bank, and at my coming I should have collected it with interest?" (Luke 19:23). The lesson is that instead of having merely short-range goals (such as the Society has by constantly expecting Armageddon any day now), a person expecting the return of Christ should be willing to plan responsibly for the long-term in case the "delay" is longer than expected.
It should be noted that these parables are cast in strong eschatological terms in their final literary form and it is possible that they originally had different applications (i.e. closer to the thought of Matthew 13:10-12//Mark 4:24-25). The Gospel of the Nazoreans, moreover, has a variant of the parable involving three servants, one of whom squandered the money with flute-girls and prostitutes, one who invested and gained interest, and one who simply hid the money (cf. Eusebius, Theophania 22). In this version of the parable, it was the servant who squandered the money who received the strongest rebuke, not the one who hid the money. This version is more symmetrical and also less eschatological than the versions in Matthew and Luke.
-
Frogleg
Thank you for the info. I really didn't mean for you to go thru that much effort, but I appreciate it. The reason I posted the question is because of the logical deductions that come from a study of the parables. By that, I mean that with every part of the Bible, there seems to be multiple layers of content within any grouping of words (which may add fire to the Bible Code controversy) with the first impression being the highest, subtlty being a little deep, deep things lower still, until, eventually, one ends up at the "Movie Critic" level, whereby resultant commentary has virtually nothing remotely connected to the original content under study. As you pointed out, the series of parables (in Matt) are connected by logical thread in that JC seems to be saying don't try to anticipate the moment, because if you do and it doesn't come at the expected time, you will end up doing things that piss off the boss. Don't over estimate the time either, because then you'll lose focus and end up missing the big event and pissing off the boss as well. (The boss, apprently being somewhat easy to piss off.) And, finally, the talent parable, which would seem to round out the trio with a warning of being too expectant, and thereby missing something else of value and (inevitably) pissing off the boss.
But the talent parable doesn't seem to fit into group, as there is no real mention of time frame. Instead, as far as the NWT version (as well as other versions in the NT that were compared), the context of warning seems linked to the aspect of doing nothing. Now, it is conceivable that the "do nothing" error is related to a feeling that the end is too near to even try and do anything; however, that isn't the feeling I get, because the "lazy" slave's excuses centered on his reading of the "master", as opposed to, "Gosh, boss, I didn't know you'd be so slow." or something along that line. (Not to mention the fact that the boss' instructions were to take care of his stuff, not to make it grow. Apparently there were some unspoken understandings along the way because certainly the "lazy" slave could truthfully have claimed that "all that you told me, I did just so!") And it's at this point that the Borg does a very clever "bait and switch".
-
peacefulpete
Leolaia noted that the parable appears to be reinterpreted by Matt's author. Luke, sourcing Matt, adds even more explicit meaning.How's this grab you? For a moment imagine yourself an actual servant or peasant who has all his life been exploited by the rich landowners and bankers. Now a Christian approaches you and says Jesus is just like them wanting you to work hard to make him profit and will take away everything you do have if you don't. Want to become a Christian? Not likely. The parable was in original form likely exposing and condemning the rich landowner as greedy profitting where he did not make effort. The last slave is made to say that very thing! I always thought it odd to have the slave say such a thing if it was about Jesus. The first 2 slaves that exploited others through buisness profiteering found favor with the master as they are like him. Also the rich master is violently angry and robs the pricipled slave of all he has when in fact he never wronged the master but had kept his money safe. All this suggests the point of the parable was to elavate the last slave as someone remembered by God though the world had contempt for him. Matt elsewhere favors the poor and downtrodden so perhaps he too intended the parable to be understood that way. Perhaps the contrast between such a master and Jesus was implied. It is also possible that the parable has been subtly harmonized with Luke who used it expressly to explain the delay.
-
Leolaia
The idea is similar to that in Matthew 13:11-12: "To you it has been given to know the secrets of the kingdom of heaven, but to them it has not been given. For to him who has will more be given, and he will have abundance; but from him who has not, even what he has will be taken away."
The reference to the servant who "hides the talent in the ground" also evokes the following similitude a few verses later: "The kingdom of heaven is like treasure hidden in a field, which a man found and covered up; then in his joy he goes and sells all that he has and buys the field" (Matthew 13:44). The irony is that the man sells all he has to buy the field that contains the treasure, rather than take the treasure for himself and add it to what he already has. The parallel in the gospel of Thomas is also interesting: "The kingdom is like a man who has a treasure in his field without knowing it. And after he died, he left it to his son. The son did not know about it. He inherited the field and sold it. And the one who bought it went plowing and found the treasure. He began to lend money at interest to whomever he wished" (Thomas 109:1). This version interestingly has both themes of a treasure hidden in the ground and the growth of money through gaining interest, the two actions of the servants in the Parable of the Talents.
-
Frogleg
PeacefulPete and Leolaia, thank you very much. I tend to agree with the idea that the three parables are linked. Although the aspect that PeacefulPete gave is probably the context and "first impression" that JC was getting across; on deeper thought, however, it would seem non-sequitor if the parable were only about capitalism. The three parables are triggered by JC's discussion as to the end of the system, and they seem to be saying, 1) Don't anticipate it because you'll get it wrong, become bitter, and blame your mistake on everybody else, 2) at the same time, don't get too involved in other things because you'll miss it and lose out, and 3) but don't do nothing. The Borg takes this last point and applies it to a tiny, teeny-weeny sliver of outlook and claims that it means making disciples. Only.
The point that I could never equate about the talents were 1) they were given by the master to the servants, and 2) the master seemd most upset by the "lazy" slaves attitude (his calling the master "exacting" or "harsh" as in other translations) more than any supposed loss of property (which, in fact, he had not lost). Now, to put this in personal, individual terms, the question has to be, "What is this material stuff represented by the talents?" The Borg wants you to believe that it is "The Truth", but God didn't give me the truth, I got it from a very nice lady who knocked on my door once a week. Besides, no matter how many doors I knock on, I will not expand the truth. It is what it is. Which brings up a further Borg implication that the talents are our chance to "prove" that we care for God by our field service, and ONLY by our field service, which would mean that FS is the only acceptable reason we are here. Pretty damn clever of them, I'd say.
So what is this material thing that the talents represent. Well, what is the one thing that unquestionably, undeniably, without any doubt, is given to us by God? One thing: ourselves.
-
Leolaia
The three parables are triggered by JC's discussion as to the end of the system
In Matthew, yes. They are thematically grouped together within an eschatological discourse. Within the literary context of this gospel, they must be interpreted in light of the overarching themes of eschatological expectations and preparedness in ch. 24-25, as you note. A separate question is whether these parables originally had such a purpose, and the extent to which they have been modified and reapplied by the gospel writers. Comparing Matthew with the eschatological discourse in Mark shows distinctive Matthean touches throughout. In Luke, the Parable of the Faithful and Wise Servant (Luke 12:42-46) and the Parable of the Talents (Luke 19:11-27) do not occur in the discourse tho they do have eschatological applications. The occasion of the Parable of the Talents in Luke is quite interesting; the story is told because the Jews "supposed that the kingdom of God was to appear immediately" (Luke 19:11). That is to say, it concerns not the parousia of Christ per se but the wider expectation of the material establishment of the kingdom which Jesus was declaring as already present unobserved in people's midst (Luke 17:20-21, "The kingdom of God is not coming with signs to be observed ... for behold, the kingdom of God is in the midst of you"; cf. Thomas 3:1, 113:1). The interpretation that PP offers, BTW, is much closer to the form of the parable in Luke (wherein the "king" was hated and feared and who would "slay" those who did not want to be his subjects) than the Matthean version. Finally, the version of the parable in the Gospel of the Nazoreans may not have an eschatological dimension at all.
The point that I could never equate about the talents were 1) they were given by the master to the servants, and 2) the master seemd most upset by the "lazy" slaves attitude (his calling the master "exacting" or "harsh" as in other translations) more than any supposed loss of property (which, in fact, he had not lost). Now, to put this in personal, individual terms, the question has to be, "What is this material stuff represented by the talents?"
My personal opinion is that the parable in an earlier form pertained not to watchfulness concerning the eschatological "coming of the Son of Man" but to the contemporary Christian community (the Church) vis-a-vis the Pharisees. That is to say, the "talents" represent the kingdom which has been entrusted to the disciples who have let it "grow" while the Pharisees are the ones represented by the wicked servant who instead "hide" the kingdom from their followers. This is on the basis of other parables and aphorisms in the synoptic gospels along these lines. As noted above, Matthew 13:44 likens the kingdom to "a treasure hidden in a field" and the parallel in Thomas refers to the person who found the treasure (= the kingdom) as gaining interest from it (109:1). The idea that the kingdom has been "hidden" or buried appears also in Matthew 13:33 // Luke 13:20-21 // Thomas 96:1-2 which likens the kingdom to leaven hidden in flour, and the growth of the kingdom (= accruing interest) is represented by the spread of the leaven "till [the flour] was all leavened" (cf. also the Parable of the Pearl in Matthew 13:45-46 // Thomas 76:1-2). The Parable of the Mustard Seed in Mark 4:30-32 // Matthew 13:13-32 // Luke 13:18-19 // Thomas 20:2-4 is similarly focused on the expansive growth of the kingdom, as is the Parable of the Sower (Mark 4:3-8 // Matthew 13:3-8 // Luke 9:1-5 // Thomas 9:1-5). See also Luke 8:16 on "hiding" the lamp, where instead it should be visible to all: "No one lights a lamp and hides it in a jar or puts it under a bed. Instead he puts it on a stand so that all those who come in can see the light".
The synoptic sayings, meanwhile, accuse the Pharisees and scribes (= lawyers in Luke, which regularly substitutes this term for "Pharisees and scribes") of hiding the "key of knowledge" that lets people into the kingdom:
"But woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites, because you shut the kingdom of heaven against men; for you neither enter yourselves, nor allow those who would enter to go in" (Matthew 23:13).
"The Pharisees and the scribes have taken the keys of knowledge and hidden them. They themselves have not entered [the kingdom], nor have they allowed to enter those who wish to" (Thomas 39:1-2).
"Woe to you lawyers, for you have taken away the key of knowledge; you did not enter [the kingdom] yourselves, and you hindered those who were entering (Luke 11:52).
"Similarly also he attacks the scholars and Pharisees during the last period of his teaching, charging them with improper actions and incorrect teaching, and with hiding the key of knowledge that they received, handed down from Moses, by which the gate of the heavenly kingdom may be opened" (Pseudo-Clementines, Rec. 2.30.1).
The disciples, meanwhile, are described as being given the keys to the kingdom: "I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven" (Matthew 16:19; cf. 18:18, which refers to the disciples in general). So it might be that the rebuke of the wicked servant who hid the talent may be connected with the several rebukes against the Pharisees in the gospels, particularly concerning them hiding the keys to the kingdom. Note especially how the same contrast between both groups appears in the Parable of the Wicked Tenants (Mark 12:1-12 // Matthew 21:33-46 // Luke 20:9-19 // Thomas 65:1-7. There the kingdom is represented by a vineyard which is given to tenants (Jewish authorities) who mistreat the vinedresser's servants, and finally who kill the vinedresser's son (= Jesus). Then, when the vinedresser finally comes himself, the tenants are put to death while the vineyard is given to others (= the Christian community). By analogy, the eschatological orientation of the Parable of the Talents may have first concerned traditional Israel//Pharisees//Jewish authorities who hid the kingdom from others while the Christians are those who wisely made it grow, and when the Lord comes he will bless the faithful and punish those who have not acted accordingly. This seems to be closer to the point of the Lukan version, whereas the Matthean version adapts the parable to eschatological concerns within the Christian community, with the wicked servant representing those within the church who do not properly prepare themselves for the Lord's return.
-
Frogleg
Leolaia, your research is astounding and you logic quite precise. Doubtless, you have nailed the issues. However, if I might put out one small idea. If the master is JC or BigJ, then the invitation to the kingdom is automatically given to everyone, and whether the talent is increased or not should make no difference. As is constantly remonstrated on this site, it's not the amount of disciple making activity that proves the lie of the Borg, but the singularity of its importance and the resultant view of life and living itself. The inequality of the amount of increase in talents made no difference to the boss, it was only whether it was used or not that was important to him. What seems to anger the boss is not that the slave didn't do anything, but that the slave didn't do anything out of fear of him. In other words, the slave knew the master was able to reap anywhere he chose, at any time he wanted to; and, possibly, that is why the slave feared losing the talent he was intrusted with more than he feared not increasing the bosses wealth. God doesn't need us, he can just make more. Since the talent, to me, represents the individual and his own personal "entrustment" of a life, the fact is, the slave did absolutely nothing with his life for fear of losing it. All of the talent, ability, power, strength, intellect, and so on that the slave had been given were completely wasted because he feared the master, and feared losing his life. The slave not only misunderstood the master's wishes, but misunderstood the world around him as well. In other words, JC was saying, ".. and don't let me come back and find you cowering in your basements, afraid to go outside because you fear me. Your life is precious, your talent is important. The day of your death is more important than the day of your birth, so, when I get back, they better not be equal." What do you suppose JC meant about just putting the dough in the bank and getting interest? Not much disciple making or kingdom invitation there? But he says even that would have been acceptable. Ever notice how the tried and true Borg just sort of turn their brains off? Don't think for themselves, won't think for themselves (or anyone else) because why? They are terrified. And so they sit, buried in the dirt.
And, I geuss, what all of this comes down to is the scorecard that I sort of kept in my head over this. Item 1, the "don't anticipate" directive. The Borg definitely gets an 'F' on this one. Item 2, don't get distracted, stay focused. The Borg gets a 'C-' on this, because althought they seem to stay focused, their inordinant failure of step one has caused the subsequent unfocusing (and downright disbelief) of so many others. And finally, item 3, a resounding 'F', because if you ever notice the whining and moaning from the Borg about why a person should or should not do certain things, the overwhelming reason is because of what "might" happen, or what a person "might be exposed to". Always a movement stopping, fear based "maybe". And to everything given to them, they try to make themselves dead, because they fear the master may kill them if they don't. Like, what would be the difference?
Oh yes, one more thing, please note that my above interpretation does NOT preclude field service (or disciple making, if you wish) to any extent whatsoever. If disciple making is something an individual grows by, then by all means, power to him. But, it is NOT THE ONLY MEANS to increase a person's value.
-
Leolaia
I don't think your interpretation is what the author of Matthew intended, but I do like the meaning you find in the parable, as these moralistic object lessons easily apply themselves to a wide range of situations....including the "Borg". I think the following statement is especially insightful: "Since the talent, to me, represents the individual and his own personal "entrustment" of a life, the fact is, the slave did absolutely nothing with his life for fear of losing it."
Your life is precious, your talent is important.
I'm not sure if your mention of "talent" is due to the monetary unit called the "talent" mentioned in Matthew, but bear in mind that the word did not gain the meaning of "aptitude" until medieval times. In fact, it is possible that the parable itself influenced the meaning of the word.... as far as it pertains to the two servants who managed to do well with their money. If this is in fact what happened, the life-lesson interpretation that you find in it is something that others have gleaned as well.
If the master is JC or BigJ, then the invitation to the kingdom is automatically given to everyone, and whether the talent is increased or not should make no difference.
Well, this is not quite true for the synoptic gospels...the kingdom is itself described as growing and spreading, like leaven in dough, like a mighty tree growing from a mustard seed, etc. This is not exactly equivalent to the Christian community per se, but the growing spread of God's rule on earth as more and more people turn to doing God's will. So the growth of the kingdom is not simply one of proselytism and making converts; it is more importantly (in the Jewish-Christian persepctive of Matthew), the increasing of righteousness and fidelity to the commandments of God. This point is most clear in Matthew 7:21-23: there will be "many" so-called Christians who consider themselves part of the Christian community, but because they "do not do the will of God" they will be cast off just like the "wicked servant" who failed to invest the money in 25:30. So this partly comes close to what you're saying, it's what you do and how you conduct your life that matters, not how many converts you make or how much time you spend proselytizing...or else it would be analoguous to 7:22: "Many will say, 'Lord, Lord, did we not preach in your name?' "
-
peacefulpete
I should have added that I don't think the parable belongs where it is situated in Matt. As you pointed out the story feels awkwardly applied in the context. Remove it and the story of the virgins ending at vs.13 flows very well into verse 31. I suspect, that Luke's use of the parable motivated the dislocation or adddition of the story in Matt. Of course I have nothing to support hat other than the very odd way of portraying Jesus as demanding and expoitive. Luke has added the Kingship theme and the slaying of all rivals completely absent in Matt. This reinterpretation would then possible account for it's present location in Matt. It would seem better suited in the setting at Matt 20 when discussing the way worldly masters expect to be served rather than serve.