The Parable of the Talents Revisited

« Is Your Church Worse than Porn? (Part 2)Is Your Church Worse than Porn? (Part 3) »

The Parable of the Talents Revisited

Mar 14th 2008Jeremy MyersBible Study

In the past, I have preached, written, and taught that the Parable of the Talents was about using what God has given us so that we can multiply it for Him and therefore, get eternal reward from Him in heaven. I taught that we all need to be like the first servant, or at the bare minimum, like the second, but we should avoid at all costs being like the lazy, unprofitable third servant.

I now believe that this interpretation is completely opposite of what Jesus meant by that Parable. Though I imagine some will call me a heretic (again), let me explain…

As I have researched, studied, and written my thesis, I have come to see that the cultural lens through which we read Scripture is completely foreign to the cultural lens in which it was written or originally read. If we really want to understand the meaning and significance of what was written, we need to understand the cultural background of the people who wrote and originally read it.

We live in a materialistically-driven culture, governed by greed and the accumulation of stuff. The Bible was written in an honor culture, where stuff and money didn’t matter. People wanted honor. Someone could be insanely rich, but if they had no honor, they had nothing. Wealth and possessions were thought to be of limited supply, and so the only way someone could accumulate more wealth is if they took it from someone else. The rich get richer at the expense of the poor, which was a very shameful way to live.

Now, take this lens, and re-read the Parable of the Talents in passages like Matt 25:14-30 or Luke 19:11-27. In our economic-driven culture, the heroes are the servants who accumulate more stuff. But in an honor-based culture, they are actually the villains, because the only way they were able to get more stuff was by taking it from someone else. The hero of the story if the third servant, who did not become richer, but instead was content with what he was given, and didn’t even put his one talent in the bank to collect “interest” (read “usury”). The master gets mad at this third servant and tries to shame him by taking away (read “stealing”) his possessions and giving it to the one who is already rich.

In this reading, the master does not represent God, or Jesus, but instead the morally reprehensible behavior of certain people of the world who steal from the poor. Jesus is teaching that this is the kind of behavior Christians can expect from the world when we try to live according to His new code of honor ethics.

One of the many books which has helped me in this area is the Social-Science Commentary on the Synoptic Gospels by Bruce J. Malina and Richard L. Rohrbaugh (Minneapolis: Fortress, 2003). If you want to understand the gospels, go buy this commentary. The “reading scenarios” at the end of the book are more than worth the price of the book. The commentary has rocked my world and allowed me to see and read the entire Bible in a whole new light. If we want to understand the Bible, we need to read it as it was written, not as we want it to be read.

12 Comments »

12 Responses to “The Parable of the Talents Revisited”

bullet on 14 Mar 2008 at 3:16 pm #

So it’s possible, then, that the Bible doesn’t really mean word for word what King James said it means? And that its meaning to people has changed over time to the point where those who think they are living by it might actually be doing just the opposite?

Jeremy, if you keep pointing out ideas and interpretations that actually make sense I won’t be able to help you when they come to take you away.
Jeremy Myers on 14 Mar 2008 at 4:12 pm #

Bullet,

HA HA HA!!!!! You are so funny.

Yes, I think you may be right about the fact that the Bible may teach exactly the opposite of what we have traditionally thought.

Hold on…some big guy dressed all in white is knocking on the door…
andrewrmcneill on 14 Mar 2008 at 5:02 pm #

Hi Jeremy!

Ain’t communicated with you in ages! I’ve been intrigued by watching your paradigm shifts about various issues over the past months and have found myself often in agreement with you. Not always, but mostly.

But anyway, I realise that there is great advantage to social-scientific criticism in helping us understand the Bible, but sometimes I’ve read interpretations put forward by such scholars and I’ve sort of thought, “Hmmm… that would be a good interpretation that would fit with the apparent social context… but I can’t see how it fits with the literary context.” So sometimes I end up rejecting some interpretations simply because I can’t see (or struggle to see) how it fits in the literary context. And this is one of those interpretations. Sure, it really helps clear up things like the hardness of the master (reaping where he did not sow and so on) which always puzzled me, but such an interpretation brings with it it’s own difficulties… like in Luke, how does the parable relate to the preceding context? Luke writes, “While they were listening to this [conversation with Zacchaeus], 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…” Then he tells the parable. The point of the parable from the start would then seem to be something like, “The kingdom of God will not come immediately therefore you should do such and such.” If the social-scientific critics view of this is correct, perhaps the parable should have the third man giving his money away to the poor rather than keeping it thus arguing for a kingdom ethic exemplified in Zacchaeus. Furthermore, Luke makes a literary connection between the kingdom of God and the king in the parable as if to identify Jesus as the king who is going away and coming back. In the social-scientists view, it’s hard to tell the point of the little section on the king going away and coming back etc. It would seem germane to the purposes of Jesus’ parable - and Jesus doesn’t seem to teach like that.

That’s just a few scattered thoughts. I’d be interested to know what you think.

Your brother,
Andrew
Jeremy Myers on 14 Mar 2008 at 6:24 pm #

Andrew,

Good to hear from you!

I went through the exact same thought process as I was studying this, and I understand your concerns. I definitely agree that in studying Scripture, we need to look at all the various contexts.

But I actually think the literary connection in Luke makes more sense than it does in Matthew.

There definitely is a literary connection between Zaccheus and the master in the parable, but I think that based on the context that follows the parable, Jesus is contrasting Zaccheus with the master in the parable, not comparing them. Zaccheus (who had stolen from the poor to make himself rich) had now repented and was giving it all back fourfold. This is set in contrast with the master of the parable who teaches, encourages, and praises his servants to steal from the poor to line his own pockets.

In the context that follows, the disciples are seen to be wavering between these two positions, and as readers, we are left asking which route they will choose (and therefore, which route we will choose).
Danny on 14 Mar 2008 at 7:40 pm #

Hey Jeremy. I was introduced to the social context approach and the honor/shame culture last quarter at UCLA, as you know. I’m very much open to the honor/shame reading of this parable, but the problem I’m facing is how this relates to the preceding parable (24:45-51) and the foolish virgins (25:1-13), as well as the sons of the kingdom (8:12), the sons of the evil one (13:42), and the workers of iniquity (13:28). I can see how the unprofitable servant of 25:14-30 may very well be an oppressed servant who will later be honored by Jesus, though he now weeps and gnashes his teeth at the cruelty of his master. But what about the faithful servant and the evil servant? The evil servant who beats his fellow workers is also weeping and gnashing his teeth. Then the foolish virgins are locked out of the wedding feast, and Jesus is the one locking them out (25:13). As you know, all of these parables are set in context of Jesus’ return, so you can see why I’m having trouble with the honor/shame understanding of this passage. The sons of the kingdom in Matthew 8:12 are weeping/gnashing their teeth (whom I still regard as believers in the kingdom), in contrast to the great-faith Gentiles who recline at the table (8:11). The unbelievers in Luke 13:28 are weeping/gnashing their teeth, and Jesus is the one telling them to depart from him.

Jeremy, is it your assessment that the only person weeping/gnashing their teeth later to be honored by Jesus is the servant in Matthew 25:14-30? Jeremy, know that I’m open to the honor/shame understanding of this passage, but man, the problems I’ve pointed out aren’t easily resolved. As you can see, I still hold that weeping/gnashing can refer to either believers or unbelievers. That’s not the issue, since it appears to be negative, whether set in the Kingdom or outside the kingdom. Since Matthew 25:14-30 is set in context of Jesus’ return, and that 24-25:30 appear connected (for the kingdom of heaven is likened unto), can we really see honor/shame in this parable? Again, I can easily see why the honor/shame understanding of the passage may be right, but only if the passage stands alone. But it’s not alone, it’s surrounded by a parable about an evil servant weeping, and foolish virgins being locked out of the wedding feast by Jesus. However, if you can provide a convincing argument as to why I’m wrong, believe me, I’m all ears. I’m just trying to be truthful and accurate with the Word, and if you can help me, then please do. I should ask though, what is your view on carnal Christians? Do they still lose rewards in your view? And don’t forget that some who view the third servant as the hero of the parable believe that Matthew and Luke villify the third servant, and thus view Matthew and Luke as unreliable.
Jeremy Myers on 15 Mar 2008 at 9:34 am #

Danny,

Excellent questions! Let me say that this is a whole new area of study for me, and though I’m writing my thesis on it, I am by no means an expert. Basically, my thesis has simply opened my eyes to a whole new way of reading the Bible. I feel that once my thesis is done, the real study begins.

Here is my current tentative basic reading of Matthew 24-25 (note that if you check the semon section on my website, I have preached through this passage in the past, and followed a MUCH different outline than the one below):

24:1-3: Questions by the disciples

24:4-44: Signs of the coming kingdom

24:45-51: As we look for the coming kingdim, there are two options. Look for the return of Jesus by providing for others, or don’t look for His coming and live selfishly.

25:1-13: These two options are illustrated with the 10 Bridesmaids. This illustrates the fact that we be in a constant state of preparedness for the coming kingdom since we don’t know when it will arrive.

25:14-30: Illustrates the worldly results of living according to kingdom principles. While we wait for the coming kingdom, we still live in this world, which does not operate by kingdom standards. (Note that the phrase “kingdom of heaven” in v 14 has been incorrectly added to most translations and is not in the Greek). This parable does not describe the kingdom of heaven, but the opposte of the kingdom of heaven. This illlustrates the results of living according the second option of 24:45-51. If we are the “evil servant” the world may praise us and we will be honored by some in this world. But if we truly live honorably (as the third servant did), the world will shame us and take away what we have and give it to those who are already rich.

25:31-46: Illustrates the kingdom results of living according to the two options presented in 24:45-51.

As I study this further, the parallels and literary connections between the four stories fall together like pieces of a puzzle. For example, terms like “the kingdom” and “the Son of Man” are not mentioned in 25:14-30 (aside from the translator addition in v 14), but are mentioned in 25:1-13 and 25:31-46.
andrewrmcneill on 15 Mar 2008 at 3:16 pm #

Waow! You’ve really done a lot of thinking on this Jeremy! I suspect that many people would disagree with you though because after investing a lot of time and effort into studying and arriving at certain conclusions, it would be pretty hard to reject them and begin to try to look at the Bible with a different “lens”. But this view is starting to make a lot of sense to me! I’m going to get that commentary that you mentioned!
Jeremy Myers on 15 Mar 2008 at 8:34 pm #

Andrew,

Yeah, I’ve been studying this new “lens” for nearly a year now. I understand the attachment many people have to the other lens. And if truth be told, this new “lens” is a new area of NT research (within the last 10-20 years or so), and so no one has really attempted to refute it yet. But it’s not really a “theory” but a culture. You can’t really refute culture. You can, however, refute the ways that culture affected the biblical writers. So we’ll see if this comes out…
Danny on 15 Mar 2008 at 10:04 pm #

Thanks for the thorough response Jeremy. Now I can see why the honor/shame reading of 25:14-30 may be the correct one. There’s a problem with 25:31-46 however. You said that “25:31-46: Illustrates the kingdom results of living according to the two options presented in 24:45-51.” Does this now mean that you view the evil servant in 24:45-51 as unsaved?

I’m more inclined to this:

24:45-51: Those who loving provide for others receive reward. Those who live selfishly lose reward.

25:1-13: Wise virgins who provide for others receive entrance into wedding feast. Foolish virgins live indifferently and are locked out of wedding feast.

25:14-30: I see the strength of honor/shame reading. Unprofitable servant is cast into darkness by ruthless ruler. Jesus will later honor him for living wisely and suffering oppression. This may indeed be the correct interpretation.

25:31-46: Sheep and goats are different from faithful and evil servant. Whether a servant chooses to be faithful or evil, it has no bearing on kingdom entrance (1 Thessalonians 5:6-10 easily proves this). The goats are unbelievers. If we say the goats are unsaved because they weren’t concerned with social justice, then we render John 6:35-40, 1 Thess 5:6-10 and Romans 4:1-5 useless. Jesus’ Death and Resurrection becomes of no effect if we’re saved by social justice, or if social justice is the “proof” of our salvation. That’s why I see the FG dispensational view of Matthew 25:31-46 as the correct one.

Let’s not forget that Jesus doesn’t approve of the sons of the kingdom in outer darkness in Matthew 8:12. There’s still the possibility hovering that the same is true in Matthew 25:30. But I must say, the honor/shame reading makes sense in light of the master/slave relationship of those days, so I don’t have a problem with it. But more study needs to be done, especially since we have two vastly different views of outer darkness and who does the casting between 8:12 and 25:30. Those in outer darkness are NOT honored by Jesus in 8:12. They have lost their reward. Since 25:30 is parabolic, I can see why Jesus isn’t the one casting the man into outer darkness. Since the Greek doesn’t mention the kingdom in 25:14-30, it may very well be that outer darkness in that passage is confined to some state of oppression in this life for faithful believers, thus strenghtening the honor/shamer reading. This would mean that the meaning of outer darkness is flexible, which may very well be true. Isn’t this exciting Jeremy!
Jeremy Myers on 15 Mar 2008 at 10:57 pm #

Danny,

Hmm. Good questions and insights on 25:31-46. You are probably right.

As you can see, a lot of work needs to be done on these passages! It’s an exciting new area of study, though, isn’t it?
Danny on 15 Mar 2008 at 11:09 pm #

Indeed it is! I now officially have NO position on Matthew 25:14-30 There is good evidence both for and against the honor/shame reading of 25:14-30. It’s definitely not simple. And we need to ask ourselves if the meaning of outer darkness in 25:30 is unrelated to 8:12 and 22:13. Maybe it is, and maybe it isn’t. Some good evidence against the honor/shame rendering of 25:14-30 comes from Joel R. Wohlgemut’s “Entrusted Money”, located in chapter 7 of Jesus and His Parables: Interpreting the Parables of Jesus Today, edited by V. George Shillington (1997: Continuum International Publishing Group).

As to Matthew 25:31-46, no one should forget 1 Thess 5:10 when reading that passage. Most people in Christendom have successfully taken the simplicity of John 3:16 and read their ideas of works into it, thus robbing people of simple faith in Jesus for eternal life. They’ve read a superficial rendering of Matthew 25:31-46 into John 3:16. Next time anyone is tempted to call the goats unsaved because they didn’t partake in social justice, let them remember these words, “He died for us, so that whether we watch (gregoreo) or sleep (katheudo), we should live together with Him” (1 Thess 5:10). As you know, gregoreo is associated with the day and soberness, while katheudo refers to the night, sin, drunkenness, and indifference (5:5-7).

The goats are unsaved for not believing in Jesus. Is Jesus for the oppressed? No doubt about it. Is Jesus concerned about the poor? Definitely. Will oppressed-but-faithful believers be honored by Jesus at the Judgment Seat? You bet. Does Matthew 25:14-30 pertain to this truth? In light of everything we’ve discussed so far, we need to do more study. Is eternal life received by social justice? No way Jose. The gift of eternal life is absolutely free.
Mike van Treek on 10 Sep 2008 at 9:32 pm #

I agree with this social contextualized reading of the parables. I think the honor/shame is not the only model and maybe not the most present in the parable. The “limited good” model is also aplicable and possibly more clearly illustrated. Some others arguments for this interpretation went from the intertextual readings and a close readings (narrative analysis) of the story.
(sorry for errors).