Ship of Fools: Kerygmania: The parable of the talents: Matthew 25:14-30

Thread: Kerygmania: The parable of the talents: Matthew 25:14-30 Board: Limbo / Ship of Fools.

To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=11;t=001278

Posted by Autenrieth Road (# 10509) on :

I have always been deeply puzzled by the parable of the talents. I get completely stuck on how mean the master is, and by extension, apparently, God.

What think Shippies? How do you interpret the parable?

Here are some questions that puzzle me: What should the frightened one-talent recipient have done? How can he get past his fear? What if he invests the talent, the natural risks of investing roll against him, and he loses the talent? Won't things go even worse for him then?

Here is Matthew 25. The parable of the talents is verses 14-30. I have linked to the whole chapter because I had never put two and two together about the material that surrounds this parable. Seeing that the talents come sandwiched between the wise and foolish bridesmaids and the sheep and the goats suggests new ideas to me about how to make sense of the parable of the talents. Or it might make me more worried about the surrounding material too...

[ 02. July 2015, 21:27: Message edited by: Trudy Scrumptious ]

Posted by shamwari (# 15556) on :

I would not take much notice of the context. Matthew has a habit of grouping things together and so the original "sitz in leben" is lost.

To my mind its simply a riposte against the religious leaders who had been given a revelation meant for all and who limited/confined/hoarded it for themselves.

Any 'moralising' interpretation such as 'use what you are given or lose it' is not on ISTM

[ 25. April 2014, 16:46: Message edited by: shamwari ]

Posted by Freddy (# 365) on :

I think the surrounding material is quite relevant and meaningful.

Each of these three parables is about being ready for Christ. This is the explicit theme of the previous chapter as well. Each of them also has this element of surprise and unfairness towards the group that somehow isn't ready. In each of them the ones who are "unready" pay a heavy price for seemingly minor infractions.

In the first parable the so-called "foolish" bridesmaids have failed to bring enough oil. Why should they be blamed for the fact that the bridegroom doesn't even show up until midnight?

In the second parable the master doles out huge sums of money to his servants for safekeeping, and then leaves for an indeterminate period of time. When he returns he condemns the one servant who has taken precautions against the loss of his money. How is that fair?

In the third parable the Christ comes and sends away everyone who has failed to treat Him well - because they did not realize that what they do to their neighbor they do to Him.

In each parable the ones who are criticized complain about the unfairness of it all, and in each one they receive no sympathy.

I imagine that most readers will intuitively understand the message, and implicit fairness, of the third parable. The other two are harder to make out.

In the first one, my understanding is that throughout the Bible "oil" is a symbol for love. The fact that these bridesmaids lacked oil means that if we lack love we will not be able to receive Christ. Love is not something that you can get from someone else, you have to have your own.

The parable of the talents seems unfair unless it is seen in the context of being ready for Christ. We are not "ready" if we do nothing with what God has given us. "Trading" and "buying" are mentioned throughout the Bible as symbols of gaining spiritual life - as can be seen in things such as the "pearl of great price", the concept of "treasure in heaven" and the very fact that "Canaan" is derived from a Hebrew word meaning "land of trade."

So the idea in this parable is that we become ready for Christ by "trading" or by gaining spiritual life by doing His will. If we fail to do this we will lose everything.

The "unfairness" aspect of the whole thing, in each parable, is designed to make us think - because these things are surprising to us.

Posted by Chocoholic (# 4655) on :

I have heard an alternative interpretation of this parable, which I understand comes from liberation theology and shows the the third servant as the hero, speaking out about an unjust master. I believe Herzog is one theologian who has proposed this.

Posted by Moo (# 107) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Chocoholic:
I have heard an alternative interpretation of this parable, which I understand comes from liberation theology and shows the the third servant as the hero, speaking out about an unjust master.

But was the master actually unjust? The third servant may have made an untrue accusation as a way of changing the subject.

Moo

Posted by Ad Orientem (# 17574) on :

This parable is about grace and the fruit it bears. In other words, the talents are grace. I think that we can tie this in with St. James' epistle, faith without works etcetera.

Posted by South Coast Kevin (# 16130) on :

I like it, Freddy. Thanks for your explanation - it certainly makes sense to me.

Posted by Evensong (# 14696) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Autenrieth Road:
I have always been deeply puzzled by the parable of the talents. I get completely stuck on how mean the master is, and by extension, apparently, God.

One of my professors recently preached on this. He said the master was not God, quite the reverse. The master was an unjust man not following Torah rules because he expected interest on his loans.

Charging interest on loans was not permitted by torah so the last slave that did not invest was the one most faithful to the law and challenged the injustice of the master.

This wiki article talks around the issue of interest that could be relevant in first century Judaism. According to Ezekiel, it was one of the worst sins.

Posted by Autenrieth Road (# 10509) on :

Evensong, are there any other parables where the master or landlord is not God?

Posted by Evensong (# 14696) on :

Depends how you interpret them. There seems to be a new move these days to see parables a little differently than traditional interpretations. Perhaps we are rediscovering their Jewish roots. I dunno.

Chocoholic mentioned Herzog above. While I haven't read his book Parables as Subversive Speech, I suspect alot of his interpretations wouldn't have the master/landord as God.

Ben Myers is another excellent theologian that speaks to this point. Below is from his rules for preaching on the parables.

quote:
Rule #1: Don't assume that God is necessarily one of the characters in the parable.

Rule #2: Don't assume that the parable is trying to tell you how to improve your life.

Rule #3: Don't assume that you're the goodie in the story (and that other people are the baddies).

Rule #4: If you can explain the whole parable without mentioning the words "kingdom of God," you're probably doing it wrong.

Rule #5: If it ends up having anything to do with going to heaven when we die, you're probably doing it wrong

Rule #6: If Jesus seems more like a headmaster giving orders than like a comedian cracking jokes, you're probably doing it wrong.

Rule #7: If you feel perfectly confident and untroubled while expounding the parable, you're probably doing it wrong.

Rule #8: If your sermon on the parable leaves people with nothing to look forward to and nothing to hope for, you're probably doing it wrong.

Rule #9: Now go back and repeat Rule 3 (because every preacher forgets this at least once in every sermon).

Rule #10: Finally, if you've preached a lousy sermon, just remember: as long as the parable was read aloud before you started, it won't be a total loss.

Posted by Ad Orientem (# 17574) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:

quote:
Originally posted by Autenrieth Road:
I have always been deeply puzzled by the parable of the talents. I get completely stuck on how mean the master is, and by extension, apparently, God.

One of my professors recently preached on this. He said the master was not God, quite the reverse. The master was an unjust man not following Torah rules because he expected interest on his loans.

Charging interest on loans was not permitted by torah so the last slave that did not invest was the one most faithful to the law and challenged the injustice of the master.

This wiki article talks around the issue of interest that could be relevant in first century Judaism. According to Ezekiel, it was one of the worst sins.

So what's the parable saying: don't lend money on interest?

Posted by Evensong (# 14696) on :

Well if the bridesmaids are "be ready", you could say the talents is "be faithful": Don't give in to your merciless Roman overlords.

This article was similar to my professor's take.

quote:
When we hear of the first two servants’ 100 percent return, we aren’t cheering. These servants have merely succeeded in getting more than their share of the limited pie. They, like their master, have learned to take what they did not deposit and reap where they did not sow. How honest is that? The first two servants have joined the ranks of the ruthless economic domination.

Enter the third servant, the one who kept the money safe. Exodus holds that if your neighbor gives you money for safe keeping, you are responsible if it is stolen (Exodus 22:7). According to rabbinic law, the proper way to keep money safe was to bury it (Rohrbaugh). Wrapping it in a cloth was riskier, but the money was safe. The third servant succeeded. He acted faithfully and ethically, but he faces his master with fear. Sitting in the peasant section, we taste the third servant’s fear. We, too, have been berated by someone who holds the strings to our well-being.

The third servant is a truthteller: “I knew you were a harsh man,” he says. The third servant becomes what William Herzog calls a “whistle-blower,” unmasking the master’s greed and the toil on others (Parables as Subversive Speech).

He doesn’t want the money: “Here take your money.” He doesn’t want to be part of the system of greed that tramples on others.

The master doesn’t try to defend his action by saying he is not harsh or that he hasn’t reaped where he shouldn’t have. Instead he verbally attacks the servant and calls him “evil and lazy.” Calling truthtellers names is a usual response.

With peasant ears this third servant becomes the hero. He is honest. He acknowledges himself to be afraid but still acts. He is creatively subordinate. He kept his master’s money as the law required but refused to be part of the master’s thievery.

Posted by Freddy (# 365) on :

Thank you, Evensong. That was certainly different!

Is he suggesting that this might have actually been Jesus' message?

Posted by Ad Orientem (# 17574) on :

I think it takes a lot of work to read that into the parable. I'm not convinced of it. They didn't need a parable to tell them usury is bad and not to rip off other people. The law of Moses already made that abundantly clear. The parable is clearly saying something else: that if the grace God provides us with does not produce profit, then the little we have will also be taken away from us.

Posted by Evensong (# 14696) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:
Thank you, Evensong. That was certainly different!

Is he suggesting that this might have actually been Jesus' message?

Yes.

And it certainly accords with Jesus' attitude to the poor and the downtrodden and his condemnation of wealth.

quote:
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
I think it takes a lot of work to read that into the parable. I'm not convinced of it.

It takes alot of work because its so untraditional. But the basics and the theology do accord with Jesus' teachings.

[ 26. April 2014, 10:51: Message edited by: Evensong ]

Posted by Freddy (# 365) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
It takes alot of work because its so untraditional. But the basics and the theology do accord with Jesus' teachings.

Sort of. I guess.

The thing is that Jesus seems to be on the master's side.

It is easy to imagine that Jesus' listeners would be surprised and confused by the parable. But it is hard for me to imagine that they would think that He was condemning the master and praising the servant.

Posted by Evensong (# 14696) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:

The thing is that Jesus seems to be on the master's side.

Where do you see that in the parable?

"Those who have nothing" are usually the ones Jesus sides with.

Posted by Freddy (# 365) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:

quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:
The thing is that Jesus seems to be on the master's side.

Where do you see that in the parable?

"Those who have nothing" are usually the ones Jesus sides with.

Yes, Jesus usually sides with those who have nothing. Not always, however. I think it is clear that this is not the case here.

The parable's resolution is the servant being cast into outer darkness. This completes the opening words of the parable. The kingdom of heaven is one where those who make use of God's gifts are happy, and those who do not are unhappy.

Posted by Autenrieth Road (# 10509) on :

Are there similar "turn it upside down" interpretations for the surrounding parables: the Wise and Foolish Bridesmaids, and the Sheep and the Goats?

I see the foolish bridesmaids being shut of of the wedding feast, the saving-but-not-investing slave getting cast into outer darkness where there is wailing and gnashing of teeth, and the goats being consigned to eternal fire and eternal punishment.

On the other hand, the wise bridesmaids, the slaves who got a return on that with which they were entrusted, and the sheep are all praised.

So it would be puzzling to me for the middle parable to have an interpretation that is backwards from the other parables.

[ 26. April 2014, 19:38: Message edited by: Autenrieth Road ]

Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :

It's not just the wise bridesmaids and the sheep and goats. The passage clearly starts in chapter 24 with

quote:
When he was sitting on the Mount of Olives, the disciples came to him privately, saying, ‘Tell us, when will this be, and what will be the sign of your coming and of the end of the age?’

Everything that follows is Matthews answer to that question. A whole lot of being alert, for we don't know the day when this will happen.

How does the servant who hides his masters money relate to the wicked slave? Or, the servants who invest the money to the faithful and wise?

quote:
‘Who then is the faithful and wise slave, whom his master has put in charge of his household, to give the other slaves their allowance of food at the proper time? Blessed is that slave whom his master will find at work when he arrives. Truly I tell you, he will put that one in charge of all his possessions. But if that wicked slave says to himself, “My master is delayed”, and he begins to beat his fellow-slaves, and eats and drinks with drunkards, the master of that slave will come on a day when he does not expect him and at an hour that he does not know. He will cut him in pieces and put him with the hypocrites, where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth.

Posted by jrw (# 18045) on :

For some reason, I'd assumed that Jesus finished this parable by saying 'To whom much has been given, much will be expected, but to whom little has been given, little will be expected', but that's another parable altogether. Maybe there's a similar theme running through this parable though. Jesus never said that nothing at all would be expected. Perhaps the servant in the parable of the talents hid the talent where he himself didn't have to look at it because he didn't want to see anything that reminded him of his duty. From a 'Do what you like. You're one of God's chosen ones', point of view, the real God would be a hard taskmaster.

Posted by Autenrieth Road (# 10509) on :

Reading chapters 24 and 25 together as Alan suggests reveals these two chapters as forming a single narrative arc.

The three parables in chapter 25 all feature someone in authority who is away and then comes back. People are waiting for him, and some do one thing, some another, while the authority figure is away. When the authority figure comes back, he praises some and casts the others out.

All three parables are introduced by the phrase at 25:1 "the kingdom of heaven is like this". The third parable makes it explicit that it is God who is the judge, and we humans who will be called to account for what we did or didn't do. (This third one isn't really a parable, but I'm just going to call these three all parables for the moment.)

I don't think that within that arc it makes sense to give the second parable an upside-down interpretation unless you turn the other two upside-down also.

And it might be possible I suppose for the bridesmaids. The foolish ones might reasonably have expected the wise ones to share, and the wise ones refuse to share, so that goes against community. And surely in other contexts we'd like to point out the value of sharing and community.

But here's where it becomes important I think that the first two are in fact parables, unlike the third: in the first two, to understand the meaning that these have at this point in the narrative, I think it's over-reaching to interpret the actions literally. The bridesmaids parable is not about oil; the talents parable is not about money. Jesus is using figures from the culture to illustrate his points -- the bridegroom giving a feast, the landlord delegating authority.

When we look to the third -- and here I'll drop calling it a parable -- we get an explicit statement about God. In this one, what we are to do is stated explicitly: feed the hungry, clothe the naked, visit those in prison, etc. I don't see a way to turn this upside-down. One might, point out all the useful features of goats, and problematic features of sheep, and that could lead to an interesting reflection. But it's not what this passage is about, and I don't see how you can turn things on their head and declare that acting like the goats -- ignoring the hungry, the naked, those in prison, etc. -- is the right path.

So since the third one can't be turned upside-down, I don't think either of the first two should be turned upside down either.

You could use them to reflect on human society, and point out all the embedded human problems in the culture from which these are drawn that persist in our culture that we would like to work against here and now. But I think if you turn them upside-down in terms of what they're really about -- how to prepare our whole life to come before God and God's judgement -- and furthermore fixate on the surface details -- oil, money -- then you've missed the point of what the Evangelist portrays Jesus as saying about God here.

I didn't have anywhere near as developed a set of thoughts about this when I started the thread. Reading what people have said has brought to my current position stated here.

The next thing I wonder about is whether we can use the parables of the Bridesmaids or the talents to conclude anything about what we are to be doing, beyond the instructions in the Sheep and the Goats. I'll have to go back to what people said earlier in the thread.

Posted by Freddy (# 365) on :

Nice!

Posted by Evensong (# 14696) on :

No one seems to have mentioned the parallel parable in Luke.

The preceding story of Zaccheus and money, as well as the line ‘A nobleman went to a distant country to get royal power for himself and then return' might argue for Herzog's analysis more readily. [Big Grin]

Posted by Autenrieth Road (# 10509) on :

Grrr, drat!

No, I guess I'm happy to know about the parallel in Luke. It just means I'll have to give it a whole new study over in that Gospel to see how Luke frames the parable. In this connection I think Luke 18 as well as Luke 19 helps to frame it -- here are a lot of parables about the evils of mammon. And maybe even going back further in Luke: to find the equivalent point in Luke to the point in Matthew, where Jesus starts the discourse that leads up to this parable being told.

I think that we first have to establish its meaning in Matthew, and its meaning in Luke, separately. The evangelists might use the parable different ways, even taking into account the characteristic differences in focuses and emphases of the different evangelists.

There may not be a single unitary meaning across different evangelists.

I think there's still meaning to discuss on the Matthew version and setting. For example, the question I asked a little while ago: do the parables of the Talents (and the Bridesmaids) in Matthew give us any indications about what to do in preparation, that adds in any way to the instructions given in the Sheep and the Goats? And how do we figure that out?

Posted by Garasu (# 17152) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Autenrieth Road:
All three parables are introduced by the phrase at 25:1 "the kingdom of heaven is like this". The third parable makes it explicit that it is God who is the judge, and we humans who will be called to account for what we did or didn't do... I don't think that within that arc it makes sense to give the second parable an upside-down interpretation unless you turn the other two upside-down also.

But that arc is Matthew's...

Posted by shamwari (# 15556) on :

Which is exactly the point I made above Garasu an it seems to have been completely ignored.

What the parables meant to the evangelists may be something different from what Jesus meant when he first spoke it.

Posted by Autenrieth Road (# 10509) on :

I don't know how to sort out where to start from in that case. Matthew's arc? Luke's arc? An attempted reconstruction of what Jesus meant independent of how the material has been presented by the evangelists?

shamwari, how do you conclude that it's a riposte against the religious leaders? I understand you're ignoring the context as not relevant to how the parable was originally used by Jesus, but why come to the interpretation that it is against the religious leaders, as opposed to any of the many other possible interpretations?

I didn't mean to be ignoring anyone's points. Evensong's interpretation was the first one where I could gather my thoughts to try to say anything in response. Now as the discussion develops, I'm circling back and starting to be able to think of responses other than an uninformative "oh" to the earlier posts.

[ 27. April 2014, 21:28: Message edited by: Autenrieth Road ]

Posted by EtymologicalEvangelical (# 15091) on :

I take the view that, in the parables, Jesus used morally imperfect analogies drawn from real life in order to reveal spiritual truths. On the face of it, the master in the parable of the talents is grotesque, and it is difficult not to feel sorry for the servant who hid his talent. The punishment is out of all proportion to the servant's failure, which can hardly even be called a crime. If Jesus intended to teach us about how to handle money righteously, then I would have to concur with Evensong. After all, the servants who made more money must have made it at the expense of others somewhere down the line. This seems to be a glorification of free market capitalism in which the nervous and frightened poor, who start with the least money to invest, fail to take risks. The parable appears to validate the attitude of some of those on the religious right who have contempt for the poor, accusing them of laziness, lack of ambition and, most perniciously and cruelly, a lack of faith in God. From a materialistic point of view, the parable could not be more opposed to the ethics of Jesus Christ.

But I believe that Jesus used the shock factor to provoke his hearers into thinking about spiritual truths. From a material point of view, the servant with one talent did nothing wrong within the framework of Christian ethics. But if the talents represent a spiritual currency given to each of us by God, then this servant can be seen in a radically different light. In my opinion, this servant failed to bear spiritual fruit in his life through the grace of God given to him, as a result of a deep-seated hostility to God ("I knew you to be a hard man, reaping where you have not sown, and gathering where you have not scattered seed"). He was paralysed into inaction and ineffectiveness by his obsession with playing safe. As I see it, this servant represents the attitude of the self-obsessed religious conformist, who is only interested in saving his own skin, and pussyfoots around the things of God in order to ensure that God will never judge Him ("because God, after all, is a pretty nasty piece of work").

This is the Christianity of obsessive religious legalism, in which no risks can ever be taken, no difficult decisions made, no controversial subjects considered. It is a religion of pat answers and simple principles, in which everything is 'certain' and there are no grey areas. It's the spirituality of "I'm alright Jack" and "As long as God has saved me, then sod everyone else..." (aka "Mevangelicalism"). And it's the spirituality of "you can never be too careful with God, and so I am not going to take any risks, in case I endanger my own precious salvation."

The interesting thing is that this servant did not even do the bare minimum to achieve a return on his talent. Even non-risky behaviour is shunned by the self-obsessed religious legalist, who just will not rouse himself to do anything, for fear that he will offend God.

As for the rejection of the "wicked and lazy" servant: well, I think that there was already a spiritual chasm between the servant and the master, just like the "goats" had already alienated themselves from Christ in the account that follows this parable in Matthew 25. So "cast the unprofitable servant into outer darkness" and "depart from me you cursed" are merely descriptions of the spiritual reality that already existed, as a result of the choices of these people.

Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on :

There's a kind of analogy I call "How much more" which takes a morally imperfect person (the unjust judge, the tricky manager) and basically says, if such a nasty piece of work can behave this way, how much more will God do for you? I don't think Jesus is anywhere near as tender of God's reputation as we are, when it comes to telling parables. If we misunderstand, well, so be it.

As for the servants, though--I'm afraid I can only take this one in a traditional sense and get any "yes, that's right" assurance from it. That is, the servants represent each of us, all of whom have been given the Gospel to steward while the Lord is, er, "away." And it doesn't really matter how well you succeed(five talents, two talents, whatever) as long as you do SOMETHING instead of sitting on your ass refusing to carry out the job responsibilities you were hired to perform. The third servant is an idiot not because he didn't bring home a major profit, but because he does crap all when investing the money is his job description. And when the master growls about at least putting it with the bankers, I take this to be parallel to "if you won't share the Good News with anybody else, at least let it bear some freaking fruit in your own personal life!"

To change the metaphor, the deposit is like seed. Either plant it, or don't accept it in the first place. Planting is a risky business, but seed that is never planted will assuredly never bring any return at all.

Posted by Oscar the Grouch (# 1916) on :

I'm with you on this, Lamb Chopped.

Before we start to turn the "conventional" meaning of the parable on its head, we need to be sure that 2000 years of Christianity has completely misled. The "plain" meaning of the parable is what we have all grown up with - use what God has given you. This makes sense and seems to "fit".

But if we follow this traditional line, that doesn't mean that we should equate the master of the parable with God. Parables are NOT allegories!

Also, I think we need to be very careful about assuming that, since usury was forbidden in the OT, the expectation of the master was wrong or that the third servant was doing what was "right". There is an awful lot we just don't know about the life of 1st century Israel. I am very sceptical about claims along the line of "this is what life was like then and so this is why our understanding of the parable has to be turned on its head."

Posted by Evensong (# 14696) on :

quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
I take the view that, in the parables, Jesus used morally imperfect analogies drawn from real life in order to reveal spiritual truths. On the face of it, the master in the parable of the talents is grotesque, and it is difficult not to feel sorry for the servant who hid his talent. The punishment is out of all proportion to the servant's failure, which can hardly even be called a crime. If Jesus intended to teach us about how to handle money righteously, then I would have to concur with Evensong. After all, the servants who made more money must have made it at the expense of others somewhere down the line. This seems to be a glorification of free market capitalism in which the nervous and frightened poor, who start with the least money to invest, fail to take risks. The parable appears to validate the attitude of some of those on the religious right who have contempt for the poor, accusing them of laziness, lack of ambition and, most perniciously and cruelly, a lack of faith in God. From a materialistic point of view, the parable could not be more opposed to the ethics of Jesus Christ.
QB]

Well said.

quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
[QB]
But I believe that Jesus used the shock factor to provoke his hearers into thinking about spiritual truths. From a material point of view, the servant with one talent did nothing wrong within the framework of Christian ethics. But if the talents represent a spiritual currency given to each of us by God, then this servant can be seen in a radically different light. In my opinion, this servant failed to bear spiritual fruit in his life through the grace of God given to him, as a result of a deep-seated hostility to God ("I knew you to be a hard man, reaping where you have not sown, and gathering where you have not scattered seed"). He was paralysed into inaction and ineffectiveness by his obsession with playing safe.

It's not deep-seated hostility. It's fear that may be based on experience.

As for the idea that this parable represents God giving us each different amounts of Grace to do with as we should - Luke's version counteracts that - all are given the same amount of money.

And if God gives us little Grace (one talent as in this parable), if we fail to live up to that even little bit, how can that be our fault? You want someone to do great things? Give em lots of Grace.

The Christian tradition says as much - we don't do things on our own - we do them via God's Grace.

I still think the traditional interpretation is tosh and makes God look like a monster.

Posted by FooloftheShip (# 15579) on :

There is one area in which the traditional interpretation utterly fails in my experience: the fruits of the spirit. I feel like I have lived under judgment of the traditional interpretation of this parable for much of my life and it has left me lost, confused, paranoid and nearly despairing. I have no idea where or how to invest, or how to manage those investments to make returns. This is utterly exhausting and debilitating, and leaves me with very few means for actually living. If the parables are about life in the kingdom of God's love, an interpretation which leads to life rather than death is needed.

Posted by Ad Orientem (# 17574) on :

The parable is meant to be challenging. It seems harsh but this precisely its purpose. The Jews thought just being a Jew, to belong to the Old Covenant, was enough to grant entry into the kingdom. The parablöe shows us that this is not the case. It's not a parable about social justice, or about the evil of ususry etc. The Law of Moses already told them that. God clearly expects a return on the grace he has given us, grace demands our cooperation. And as I said before, if we read this parable in light of the epistle of St. James, for instance (faith without works etc.), this becomes abundantly clear.

[ 29. April 2014, 04:57: Message edited by: Ad Orientem ]

Posted by Evensong (# 14696) on :

Parables usually center around an aphorism.

In this parable this is the aphorism:

For to all those who have, more will be given, and they will have an abundance; but from those who have nothing, even what they have will be taken away.

If you can't make sense of that, you've missed the point. Because the aphorism is the point.

The grace idea or the faith vs works idea does not work to explain the aphorism.

An "evils of capitalism" rendering fits the aphorism much better. As a critique.

Posted by Ad Orientem (# 17574) on :

No, that just liberation theology worked into the parable. It doesn't fit. Be it any the political gospels that have done the rounds, trying to work it in is much like a toddler trying to put the wrong shape into hole on the board: you can force it in but it's still not the right shape.

Posted by Evensong (# 14696) on :

The traditional interpretation forces it more than the liberation theology one: God still comes out looking like a dick.

[ 29. April 2014, 06:13: Message edited by: Evensong ]

Posted by Ad Orientem (# 17574) on :

Ultimately we shall just have to agree to disagree, nevertheless I can't see that the parable has anything other than a spiritual meaning as is the case with all the parables. Whenever Christ is questioned concerning the nature of words he always makes this quite clear. It is not a political Gospel. "Render unto to Caesar that which belongs to Caesar etc". "My kingdom is not of this world etc". The Gospel of Christ transcends politics which is why it's wrong to work political idealism into it, whether that be liberation theology, the prosperity Gospel or whatever. They're all doomed to fail because that's not what the Gospel is about.

Posted by Evensong (# 14696) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
Whenever Christ is questioned concerning the nature of words he always makes this quite clear. It is not a political Gospel. "Render unto to Caesar that which belongs to Caesar etc". "My kingdom is not of this world etc".

From this world is a better reading in the Greek.

quote:
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
The Gospel of Christ transcends politics which is why it's wrong to work political idealism into it, whether that be liberation theology, the prosperity Gospel or whatever. They're all doomed to fail because that's not what the Gospel is about.

The Gospel does indeed transcend politics, but it is by no means removed from it.

Kim Fabricius is magic on this as usual:

quote:
1. The doctrine of the ascension is the basis of all political theology – and why there can be no such thing as apolitical theology. The church cannot be a cultus privatus because Jesus of Nazareth, “crucified under Pontius Pilate,” reigns and his edict is public truth. Remove Christ from the forum and it does not remain empty: nature abhors a vacuum; idols love one and soon fill it.

2. God is political. Cut the political bits out of the Bible – as Jim Wallis and some friends once did – and you’re left with “a Bible full of holes.” God is political – and God takes sides. In the Old Testament, Yahweh’s exodus and covenant “bias / preferential option for the poor” is now a well-worn phrase – but an undeniable fact. And the New Testament – Luke in particular – doesn’t drop the ball: the Magnificat and the Jubilee Manifesto suggest the game plan.

But to balance that:

quote:
5. The point is not that the poor and oppressed have a monopoly on virtue, let alone that they are an elect group, rather it is simply that they are the ones who get screwed – and God doesn’t like people getting screwed. So God sends his servant Moses, his spokesmen the prophets, and finally his Son Jesus, their Big Brother, to take care of the bullies, though he fights with his mouth not his fists. Not, of course, that God loves the oppressor any less than he loves the oppressed; indeed his rescue mission is to liberate them both, the latter from their humiliation and suffering, and the former from their pride and violence.

Ten propositions on political theology.

Besides.....spiritualising the Gospel too much makes it skate too close to gnosticism.

"Strategically Christians should work for a world that asymptotically approaches the kingdom of God." (i.e. the Gospel is political, but it transcends and is not completely identified with politics)

[ 29. April 2014, 07:47: Message edited by: Evensong ]

Posted by Ad Orientem (# 17574) on :

Our faith can and should dictate how we act in the political sphere but that is a world apart from trying to impose political idealism on it, as if the Gospel approves of one political system above another. It doesn't. The parables are designed to express a spiritual truth not a political system.

Posted by Evensong (# 14696) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
Our faith can and should dictate how we act in the political sphere but that is a world apart from trying to impose political idealism on it, as if the Gospel approves of one political system above another. It doesn't.

I think it does. It just has its own brand of political idealism that will never be fully defined or realised by our contemporary ones - purely because WE do not bring in the Kingdom fully - God does.

Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
The traditional interpretation forces it more than the liberation theology one: God still comes out looking like a dick.

I really don't think this bothers Jesus at all. Though if it bothers you, you might consider the "how much more" analogies I mentioned above.

Posted by Evensong (# 14696) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:

quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
The traditional interpretation forces it more than the liberation theology one: God still comes out looking like a dick.
I really don't think this bothers Jesus at all.

God the father being a dick doesn't bother Jesus?

Wasn't he the same chap that said "God is light, in whom there is no dickness at all"?

quote:
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
Though if it bothers you, you might consider the "how much more" analogies I mentioned above.

I'm afraid I don't understand how your "how much more" analogy works in this parable. The master is a dick so look how much more of a dick God is?

Or the master is a dick so how much more will be God be unlike the master? If the latter, the liberation theology interpretation fits.

Btw, I'd be interested to hear how you interpret the punch line of the parable (the aphorism I quoted above).

Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :

There are similarities to other parables. Take, for example, the fig tree. Is the man who owns the unfruitful fig tree "being a dick" for wanting to uproot and burn it?

In the parable of the talents, it is lack of fruit that is punished. Just the same as with the fig tree, although here there is no gardener to plead for a last chance.

But the basic message is the same. You have been given talents/soil to grow in, you are expected to bear fruit, if you don't then you're out and what you have will be given to those who do bear fruit.

Posted by Freddy (# 365) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
Parables usually center around an aphorism.

In this parable this is the aphorism:

For to all those who have, more will be given, and they will have an abundance; but from those who have nothing, even what they have will be taken away.

If you can't make sense of that, you've missed the point. Because the aphorism is the point.

The grace idea or the faith vs works idea does not work to explain the aphorism.

An "evils of capitalism" rendering fits the aphorism much better. As a critique.

I love this, although I disagree with the conclusion.

I especially like this:

quote:
If you can't make sense of that, you've missed the point. Because the aphorism is the point.

I agree that this aphorism, which is also found elsewhere, is the point. Everything depends on how you understand the aphorism.

It is easy to view the aphorism as fundamentally unfair - or as an expression that rages against life's unfairness.

I don't think that it is unfair at all.

As I understand it, the aphorism is saying that if you have love, you will get more love. But if you don't love, then you will lose even the love you have.

Similarly, if you have faith (as a grain of mustard seed) you will gain more faith. It will grow. But if you don't have faith, then even the small amount of faith that you have will be taken away.

A similar contemporary aphorism is:

quote:
"The rich get richer and the poor have children."

This is the very picture of the unfairness of life.

But its spiritual equivalent - dealing in spiritual rather than worldly riches - is eminently fair.

The difference is that whereas scarcity is a given in the physical world, the spiritual reality is entirely different. In spiritual terms "riches" are limited only by desire. You can have all the love you want, and the more you give away the more you have.

This makes both the aphorism and the parable into a clever expression of God's love and how to participate in it. The servants who did not fear the loss of riches, and who freely traded in them, experienced spiritual growth.

The idea that any of this has anything to do with the evils of capitalism is completely understandable. I think that the reader is invited to consider that possibility, which is directly articulated by the servant with the one talent. But I think that to take that bait is to miss the point.

Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:

quote:
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:

quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
The traditional interpretation forces it more than the liberation theology one: God still comes out looking like a dick.
I really don't think this bothers Jesus at all.
God the father being a dick doesn't bother Jesus?

Wasn't he the same chap that said "God is light, in whom there is no dickness at all"?

Jesus appears to have no concern whatsoever for God's public reputation. He regularly tells parables in which the leading character (master, vengeful king, unjust judge) is easily taken as corresponding to God (whether correctly or incorectly, this is still shockingly careless of him). He highlights God's apparent unfairness in his preaching (e.g. "sends rain on the just and the unjust") and never, ever attempts to duck or even answer the theodical questions ("who sinned, this man or his parents?" "Neither, but that the works of God might be displayed"--where's the justice in that?). To sum up, he speaks in ways we now call the "difficult texts," that have the much more timid Christian church scurrying to take the bite out of them, even two thousand years later. That smoothing over impulse seems to be an impulse from which Jesus himself is entirely free. This probably ought to teach us something, but I'm too timid myself to go and do likewise.

quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:

quote:
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
Though if it bothers you, you might consider the "how much more" analogies I mentioned above.
I'm afraid I don't understand how your "how much more" analogy works in this parable. The master is a dick so look how much more of a dick God is?

Or the master is a dick so how much more will be God be unlike the master? If the latter, the liberation theology interpretation fits.

Btw, I'd be interested to hear how you interpret the punch line of the parable (the aphorism I quoted above).

You missed the point. The "How much more" analogy is one where you take a small, decidedly lacking object(such as a human father or an unjust judge), point out that even this object can do some kind of good (give food to his children instead of a snake, give justice to a widow in order to keep her from driving him crazy), and THEN go on to say, "If X can do Y, how much more will God (who is actually good, unlike X) do Y!"

As for the aphorism, it's a clear, uncomfortable and uncompromising statement of how life works in the spiritual realm. Use what God has given you, or lose it. God's character only comes into it if you are a hearer/reader who assumes that God is morally obliged to rescue people from the natural consequences of their foolish and malicious actions. (And yes, I do take that last servant to be both foolish and malicious.)

Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
There are similarities to other parables. Take, for example, the fig tree. Is the man who owns the unfruitful fig tree "being a dick" for wanting to uproot and burn it?

In the parable of the talents, it is lack of fruit that is punished. Just the same as with the fig tree, although here there is no gardener to plead for a last chance.

But the basic message is the same. You have been given talents/soil to grow in, you are expected to bear fruit, if you don't then you're out and what you have will be given to those who do bear fruit.

This.

There is nothing to suggest that we're dealing with a poor widdle twee that has been planted in a bad place or otherwise prevented from doing what trees do naturally. Similarly, there is nothing to show that the one-talent servant is actually a poor, put-upon creature, suffering under an abusive master. We have only his excuses--"I knew you were a hard man"--and the master's ironical acceptance of that character--"if that's how you think I am, why didn't you at least do the bare minimum to keep your ass out of trouble?"

We have the silent contradiction of the other two servants, who work for the same master and yet had no difficulty in producing appropriate fruit. We have the master himself behaving reasonably, rewarding the second servant just as he does the first, and not expecting him to do more than is reasonable given the smaller amount invested in him. The master even suggests that if servant three HAD taken the lazy (and possibly immoral) bankers' option, he would have let him alone instead of tossing him out on his ear.

Basically, the master is expecting the servants to do their job, just as the landowner is expecting the tree to do a tree's job. If he gets a response, even a minimal one, good. If he meets with unreasonable refusal, eventually the tree--or the servant--will be out.

Posted by A.Pilgrim (# 15044) on :

I am indebted to Kenneth Bailey for my current understanding of this parable. I will try to give a brief outline, and a fuller exegesis can be found in Jesus Through Middle Eastern Eyes pp.397-409. The version in Luke has additional details not found in Matthew’s gospel, which allows the full implications to be drawn, so I will pick out points from both versions. (With apologies for jumbling them together a bit.)

When the servants are given the sums of money, they are expected to engage in trading with them. Because it isn’t their own money, but their master’s money, the trading that they do will be in the name of their master, not in their own names. This is the critical point. By doing so, they will be demonstrating their loyalty to their master – that they are their master’s men.

In Luke’s version (19:11-27; with a nobleman master) the social environment in which this loyalty is to be shown is hostile to the nobleman/master. See v.14 – the subjects of the nobleman didn’t want him to rule over them. So the servants trading with their master’s money, in his name, are putting their necks on the line. Bailey comments that the instruction they were given: ‘Put this money to work until I come back’ can be translated with a different shade of meaning as ‘... in the expectation that I will come back’. So the servants will have to put their faith in the word of the nobleman that he will return with the kingdom, while operating as their master’s men in a trading environment where others are hostile to the name of the man in whom they are trading.

So the nobleman returns, and calls his servants to give account of the amount of trading that they have engaged in (as shown by how much they have gained). With our Western capitalist mindset, we see the important aspect as the amounts that have been gained (and thereby show the truth of the view that everyone comes to the Biblical text with preconceptions). But the sums themselves aren’t the main point. What the gains show is that the servants have been loyally trading in their master’s name. Except for the one who hasn’t. The servant who hid the money isn’t criticised for not making a profit, but for disloyalty. He didn’t think that the nobleman would return with the kingdom, and therefore wasn’t prepared to show that he was his master’s man by trading in his name.

Bailey gives a credible explanation for the interchange between the disloyal servant and the master about the master being a ‘hard man’ and the master’s suggestion that the money should have been put on deposit, but I regret that I don’t have the time to explain here.

The application is clear. The nobleman/master is Jesus, who is going away to receive a kingdom. (Which was going to happen in the not-too-distant future; and now Jesus is seated at the right hand of God in sovereign power, but has not yet returned to the world to demonstrate his kingly reign.) The servants are the disciples (and all subsequent disciples who believe in the witness of the Apostles). Those servants (Jesus’s disciples, both then and now) are expected to demonstrate their loyalty to Jesus in a social environment of people who do not want Jesus to be their king. That social environment is the secular world which is hostile to the kingship of Christ. When Jesus returns he will look for evidence of loyalty to him by his servants having acted in his name with the gifts that he has given them. (What do the sums of money represent? Hmmm, that’s a bit more difficult to pin down, but I guess anything that can be used to demonstrate to the world around us our loyalty to Jesus.)

And from Luke’s version, a stark warning in verse 27: ‘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’. Two points: yet another warning that the enemies of Jesus, those who do not acknowledge his kingship, who do not want him to rule over them, the ungodly who reject Jesus, will be executed. And it will be done by the loyal servants as the agents of the king’s justice. (Bit of a tangent here, but I’m fascinated to find this as a piece of evidence that supports my view that the execution of the Amalekites in the OT is a prefigurement of God’s judgement on those who oppose His purposes and that God’s people (in that case the People of Israel) are the ones who carry out the execution of God’s judgement.)

So for Matthew to include this parable (re-expressed in a briefer version) in the discourse about how the disciples are to behave while awaiting the second coming of Jesus (which is what Matt.24:36 – 25:46 is all about) is entirely logical.

Hope that all makes sense – it’s been a real rush to get this all down.

Angus

Posted by Gramps49 (# 16378) on :

I am going to take a different tact on this parable. I think the parable is about the doing what it takes to expand the kingdom of God.

Often times Jesus will use an example of what may be considered ruthless to get a greater point across.

The third servant admits that his master reaps where the master does not sow. The master gathers where he has not seeded. The master will do any thing to expand his estate.

In the case of the first two servants, they did what the master wanted. They took risks and doubled their talents. The master is pleased and adds to their possessions, inviting them to enter his joy.

In its literary setting, Jesus tells this story to his disciples (24:3) to prepare them for the days ahead when their faith will be tested. This parable depicts how the disciples are to demonstrate their faithfulness as they anticipate the return of the Lord.

What does faithfulness look like in a time of waiting? In Matthew's Gospel faithfulness is emulating the ministry of Jesus. Jesus has announced the arrival of God's kingdom by feeding the hungry, curing the sick, blessing the meek, and serving the least.

All who would follow Jesus are to preach the good news of the kingdom to the whole world (24:14) by going about the work that the master has called them to do (24:24-51). This work includes visiting the sick and imprisoned, clothing the naked, welcoming the stranger, and feeding the hungry (25:31-46). Those who are found faithful may hear their Master say, "Well done, good and faithful servant."

In doing these activities, which are in themselves very risky. Nonetheless, through them the kingdom of God expands.

Posted by Freddy (# 365) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Gramps49:
Often times Jesus will use an example of what may be considered ruthless to get a greater point across.

The third servant admits that his master reaps where the master does not sow. The master gathers where he has not seeded. The master will do any thing to expand his estate.

This reminds me of David's words:

quote:
2 Samuel 22: Therefore the Lord has recompensed me according to my righteousness,
According to my cleanness in His eyes.
26 “With the merciful You will show Yourself merciful;
With a blameless man You will show Yourself blameless;
27 With the pure You will show Yourself pure;
And with the devious You will show Yourself shrewd.
28 You will save the humble people;
But Your eyes are on the haughty, that You may bring them down.

Psalm 18:24Therefore the Lord has recompensed me according to my righteousness,
According to the cleanness of my hands in His sight.
25 With the merciful You will show Yourself merciful;
With a blameless man You will show Yourself blameless;
26 With the pure You will show Yourself pure;
And with the devious You will show Yourself shrewd.
27 For You will save the humble people,
But will bring down haughty looks.

That is, the way that the wicked servant saw the master was a reflection of his own point of view.

Posted by Freddy (# 365) on :

quote:
Originally posted by A.Pilgrim:
Hope that all makes sense – it’s been a real rush to get this all down.

Yes, this makes great sense. Thanks!

I especially love the communal loyalty aspect of the master's and servants' relationship. I hadn't thought of it in terms of loyalty before.

Posted by Belle Ringer (# 13379) on :

There is an aspect of this that I think I see in other places, that I will crudely state this way - you get what you expect. The two good servants worked for a generous master and got generously treated, the third servant worked for a cruel master and got cruelly treated.

What you fear comes upon you; have faith and great things can happen; lots of that sort of thing in the NT, as if our own beliefs/attitudes/expectations affect our experiences.

I don't mean to sound like the "Law of Attraction" as if we alone create reality - but we all know "if you think you can't do something and therefore won't try it of course you won't succeed in it." We block our own abilities to receive good when we believe anything we do won't make a difference anyway so refuse to try.

Each of the three servants experienced what they already believed true of the master's character. That intrigues me. What do I deeply believe is God's character, and how is that affecting what I do - or avoid doing - not just physically but spiritually?

Posted by grumpyoldman (# 18188) on :

quote:
This chapter of Matthew, especially the parable of the talents, illustrates how an urban reading site transforms the interpretation of scripture enabling the essential meaning of the text to be revealed and the imposed, elitist and ecclesiastical meaning overturned.
Seeing the parable of the talents from the perspective of a poor urban community is one of the keys to opening up this chapter and the whole of the Gospel of Matthew to a better interpretation. The harsh statement of the rich man – “For to all those who have, more will be given, and they will have an abundance; but from those who have nothing, even what they have will be taken away.” (25:29) is a perfect description of the way the capitalist system works and how the economic systems of most of the world in the 21st century penalise the poor, taking what they have and giving it to those already far too wealthy for anyone’s good.
The suspicion offered by urban people from their reading site is essential to enable the critical thinking which asks whether the parable supports the unjust status quo or challenges it.

For an urban hermeneutic which opens up this passage and the rest of Matthew see www.urbanmatthew.co.uk.

Jesus (see the Herzog reference in an earlier post) is encouraging the peasant poor to acknowledge how the system worked. Freire would call in conscientisation. The people know it but they are so oppressed by it that they are in no position to question it. The quandary of the third slave is whether to go with the system which makes the rich man richer at the expense of the poor or to refuse to participate. He makes the right, kingdom, choice and suffers as does Jesus ultimately.

Incidentally, check out the Greek for the phrases "The kingdom of heaven is like..." and "the kingdom of heaven might be compared with...." They mean something different but custom has led many translations to assume that it is always "like" making the rich and the monarchs into examples of God and reinforcing the wicked by implying divine authority for their ways.

[ 08. August 2014, 14:57: Message edited by: Mamacita ]

Posted by Mamacita (# 3659) on :

Welcome to the Ship, grumpyoldman. Be sure to acquaint yourself with the Ship's 10 Commandments and the FAQs page.

Further to that point, please note that I have edited your post to make clear that you have quoted an outside work. (Thank you for posting the link to it.) As Commandment 7 stipulates, we have to be very careful about lifting material wholesale from other sources.

There is an official Welcome Aboard Thread over in All Saints, where you can introduce yourself to all and sundry, should you feel so inclined. Otherwise, enjoy your voyage with us.

Mamacita, Kerygmania Host

Posted by Mamacita (# 3659) on :

quote:
Originally posted by grumpyoldman:
Incidentally, check out the Greek for the phrases "The kingdom of heaven is like..." and "the kingdom of heaven might be compared with...." They mean something different but custom has led many translations to assume that it is always "like" making the rich and the monarchs into examples of God and reinforcing the wicked by implying divine authority for their ways.

This is an interesting thought and might make for a good discussion as a thread in its own right!

Posted by Nigel M (# 11256) on :

quote:
Originally posted by grumpyoldman:
For an urban hermeneutic which opens up this passage and the rest of Matthew see www.urbanmatthew.co.uk.

It's a thought provoking stance and no doubt gels with those contemporary views of society that draw particularly on Marx from a sociological perspective. It would be interesting to discuss whether that view can validly be said to be biblical, though, in the sense that it emanates from the “essential meaning of the text.”

Posted by grumpyoldman (# 18188) on :

quote:
Nigel M said:

It would be interesting to discuss whether that view can validly be said to be biblical, though, in the sense that it emanates from the “essential meaning of the text.”

It is fair to suggest that to identify the “essential meaning of the text” is not straightforward. Is it even possible to agree what the term “biblical” means?

The whole of scripture, the Hebrew scriptures as well as the New Testament, is made up within itself of competing voices and conflicting interpretations of reality and the revelations of the divine. It is a long identified truism that the bible disagrees with itself. It can be argued that interpreting the scriptures now is not about closing down the “false” voices to one supposedly authentic (“objective” or “essential”?) and finally authoritative voice, but to recognise that the voices of then have echoes in the voices of now. The conflicts of then are repeated in new and different contexts now.

The failure of the church has always been to imply that one interpretation – that of the dominant class and culture – is the “correct” one so that the voices of the elite in scripture serve to underline and authenticate the voices of the elite in the interpretive world. That is why kings and rich men are assumed to be representative of God, and are, despite the evidence, labelled as generous or good. Those who critique this view tend to see the God of the Judaeo-Christian tradition as the Liberator, on the side of the oppressed, and recognise that a valid hermeneutic can only come from “below”. This is a questioning, dynamic and provisional interpretation, an interpretation "on the way", and interpretation as biased as the dominant one but without its arrogance. The important thing is to create an interpretative space where the suppressed voices from within as well as from outside the scriptural texts can be heard properly. Whether we like it or not, interpretation is always a matter of choice. The choice made determines what we describe as “biblical”.

It is worth adding that the narrative encounters of Jesus and his parables require a social and political awareness, among other things. That means a social and political awareness about the actual situation in Galilee in the first century, as well as our own context. David Harvey notes in Spaces of Capital:

quote:

In a Marxian approach it is important to be aware of the relational nature of “facts”. This methodology is significant because any methodology based on an Aristotelian approach implies an ethically neutral method which is far from that, being biased instead to the status quo. It is vital to include questions of political economy in the study of the text and its social context. This is not a case of simply recognising the economic factor, but a case of placing the text within its full context of the economic base with its concomitant social (i.e. class) relationships. Harvey, David, Spaces of Capital -Towards a Critical Geography. Edinburgh University Press, Edinburgh, 2001, pp 78-79.

The economic base of Galilee and Judea and indeed most of the empire was one where a tiny minority took away the means of life from the majority. This model can be found throughout the world now, and in some places, such as marginal urban communities, the truth of this is very clear.

Where do we look then to find the “essential meaning of the text”? Perhaps the challenge is to free ourselves, or be freed by God the Liberator, again and again, from the dominant interpretation which ensnares us because of our culture and class, or that which rules in our society. A reading site shaped by marginalised communities enables a new and better interpretation of Matthew 25:14-30, as well as the rest of scripture, because it is as close as we can be today to the social and economic base which underlies the original story and in which the parable was told. The website noted in the earlier posts attempts that process.

Herzog is worth reading because he adopts a materialist approach to the parables, taking them seriously as expressions of the context of the poor in contrast to the “accepted” descriptions of reality (the view of the elite, dominant groups). The parables enabled the peasant poor to verbalise and objectify the problems of oppression and then begin the subversive task of challenging the system from a basis of community awareness and knowledge.

If that view is accepted then it might be argued that the “reverse meaning” of the Parable of the Talents, and its basis, is indeed biblical as it does emanate from the essential meaning of the text because it is rooted in the context of the text.

Looking through the posts I am in agreement with Evensong. He apparently came to his view through his professor and then the Mennonite article he quotes. I came to mine through being engaged with unemployed people on state benefits in marginalised urban communities who saw that which they had taken away from them so that those who had might have more.

Finally, on questions about other “upside down” parables it needs to be stated that many were already upside down because of the dominant interpretation from an elite perspective. All that is happening is that they are being turned the right way up. Again, for such readings look at www.urbanmatthew.co.uk where things like “love your enemy” and “render to Caesar” are re-examined as well as the parables.

Posted by Nigel M (# 11256) on :

Thanks for picking this up, grumpyoldman. This thread is opening up the grand questions that need asking when someone reads a text in a particular way. The big issue for me is... covered below. First, though, I think I should cover off some of the associated questions.

[1] The term “biblical.” Yes, tangentially another biggie question. I think, though, for the sake of this thread I'll park it aside (unless it becomes crucial for what follows), save to pick up on shamwari's point near the top of the thread (and don't worry shamwari – I didn't ignore it!) about the original setting of the parable. I think Freddy's following point provides the way out. It is true that we struggle to find certainty over the original life-setting of a parable told by Jesus. What we do have, however, is the context within which Matthew places it, i.e., the surrounding material (as Freddy put it). That is the sitz-im-leben of interpretation for Christians. It is the place where we meet a communication from God. It is the median through which God chose to communicate, though perhaps we might have preferred it if God had inspired Jesus to write all his material down himself – in fact it would have been nice if all communication from God was in the first person singular and written on plates of gold!

This provides one base upon which we can stand when it comes to interpretation: we have texts written by humans. They express themselves using their idiolect, style and rhetoric. What we have is a collection of writings that are accessible when understood in terms of their being intended expressions. In other words, an author intended to effect a change in an audience by affecting their outlook. We can get at this meaning (the authorial intention) by paying attention to the words he or she used in the way he or she used them to effect that change. This is an area worth digging into as it impacts exactly on interpretation.

[2] Competing voices and conflicting interpretations.... The issues at play here it seems to me surround human interpretation and validation. It's not really about competing voices of the text, more about competing readings of the text. Less author and text, in other words, more reader/hearer/speaker of that text. 'Twas always thus, of course, and we are in an era now when we are required to substantiate readings in the public sphere (we have the whole post-structural debate to thank for that), taking into account the worldview that drives the presuppositions we hold and that in turn drive our readings.

[3] Stance. Where one stands when it comes to interpretation and validation is useful to know. Overstanding or understanding? We 're making some assumptions on the thread – we have to if we are not to become sidetracked – and one of these is that this is about a Christian reading that impacts on the community. It is therefore a public reading. It asserts that there is a way to know God and how he wants us to live. Not at issue, I also assume, is that we are aware that presuppositions colour interpretation. This brings us to a potential impasse. What is being claimed in respect of the reading of the parable in Matt. 25:14-30 is that there is a “traditional” interpretation (understood to mean that of a dominant class and culture) and that opposed to that there is an “authentic” view (understood to be that – or in behalf of – a marginalised class and culture).

It probably goes without saying (which means it has to be said!) that each reading needs to be validated. We are faced with – apparently – two mutually incompatible interpretations: the traditional and the authentic. How does one determine which is the valid one? Is either, indeed, valid? How does one ensure that one's reading is not simply determined by one's stance? If the stance is wrong, then does that not put a question mark against the reading?

[4] Definitions . Related issues also at play here involve just what terms like “traditional”, “authentic” and “dominant” actually mean. What is being brought to the table here? Are these terms determined in advance by one's stance (inevitably they probably are) and how does one validate those determinations as factors in interpretation? After all, I live in a culture where the dominant 'reading' is now one of egalitarianism. That implies to me at least that if there ever was such a thing as a “traditional” reading, then it has now been usurped in popular readings by a new paradigm. The 'voice of the poor' is now a dominant reading and does this not then imply that it, just like its predecessors, has become the voice of the dominant, the powerful, the manipulators of society? Does it not, then, also have to fail because it asserts that there is one authentic interpretation?

So we have some questions.

...and back to the dots at the top.

The model I find useful for reading texts seeks to grapple with the questions posed by interpretation and validation, so as to overcome that issue of mutually incompatible readings. It takes seriously the role of the human author and his/her intention, and to do that it also takes seriously the surrounding context of his or her expression. This means establishing the dominant worldview that coloured the expressions at the time. There are three legs to the stool, here. One is the sociological and the strength of the urban-reading context approach is that it does seek to take seriously a sociological analysis. This is, however, but one leg of the stool. We also need the archaeological (all artefacts – texts included) and the linguistic (analysis of the texts in the wider contexts opened up by the other two legs of the stool) to get at the worldview.

It seems to me that the highest level worldview at work in the ancient near east is that of covenant. It makes the most sense of the archaeological, sociological, and linguistic data we have to hand. The paradigm at work is mostly background (assumed) in the writings, but not always. When under threat, it is foregrounded. It asserts that there is a hierarchy in society (and creation in general) of relationships. The junior serves the senior and the senior protects the junior. When that comes under threat people start writing and, behold! We have a bible!

So when it comes to Matthew 25, there is an approach that is publicly available in the sense that it relies on visible material / data to hand. It can provide an audit trail, as it were, to show how one gets to an interpretation.

Where I think the urban-context approach has a weakness is at this point. It does not take into account deeply enough what an author actually intended. Instead it has a starting grid of assumptions that need justifying. Now it may indeed be that Matthew was indeed concerned to be an advocate for the marginalised in society, but that reading would need to be validated. At the moment I get the impression that it is Matthew that is being marginalised in favour of a reader-response approach. The interpretive space being applied seems to push the author to the periphery and out of the field of play.

Does that not risk making a god out of the text and the reader?

Posted by shamwari (# 15556) on :

Picking up where Nigel left off. The Readers Response approach seems to be in vogue these days. I think it is both misleading and dangerous. What safeguards are there against interpretations which are so highly personalised? To my mind it smacks of the text meaning anything you want it to mean and that way lies chaos.

Posted by grumpyoldman (# 18188) on :

I found myself answering the points in this string and then pulling up short. Is there a value here in reworking arguments which have their echoes in the debates of centuries? They have been rehearsed and misunderstood and rehashed and repeated ad infinitum, and I have read them over and over since I became aware of “theology”, which was too long ago to remember. The discussion feels like the debates of academia which I try to keep away from.

Don’t get me wrong. I am not denouncing academia, even though some academics might seem more interested in point scoring or self advancement than the truth about God. But academia is only a minor tool, a partial and provisional blunt instrument in the search for salvation and in the hope of its realisation. I don’t think the debates in that realm are necessarily for here.

There is nothing intrinsically wrong with the spirit of enquiry and the search for hints of the truth in the field of academic exploration. It is true that every type of criticism – form, historic, redaction, literary, socio-literary, linguistic, narrative, source, rhetorical, and many more – has been employed in the deconstruction of Matthew’s Gospel so that we might understand better what Matthew (or whatever he was called) intended, by identifying his sources, his audience, his community, and everything but his favourite breakfast. Also so that we might know what might be the ipsissimma verba of Jesus and which bits of the teaching or the parables we might ditch because they were added later. This work has offered some useful insights. More have come from the more recent anthropological methods.

As a priest and preacher I work on and with the “academic” methods and questions I have mentioned, carrying on from undergraduate and post-graduate studies. I engage (badly) with the original languages. But the primary question in every sermon in every liturgical celebration has to be, “Where does your life, as a local community, in its need for salvation, begin its dialogue with the recorded conversations of first century Palestine?” or, “What is there in this community, locality, city which cries out for God’s justice and the hope of redemption?” The purpose of this primary question is to begin the dialogue with the text. (Incidentally, by “community” I mean the local network of human beings living in the same locale and interacting with each other. I do not mean the church community. And by "text" I do not mean the plain bare words on their own but the 2000+ years of engagement with them by the church from which we cannot separate ourselves.)

The technical stuff, from biblical criticism to doctrinal formulation to church history, has to be part of that dialogue with the text, but not the dominant part. It has to be carried by the preacher in the background – technical expertise which might assist in places – but it does not and cannot offer the truth or the essence of a text, especially when that text is part of a long dialogue and the initiators of the current phase of that dialogue are represented by the people sitting in church.

Let’s face it, the intentions of the man behind the Gospel which is attributed to someone called Matthew are hard to determine. The assertions about those intentions are subjective responses to preferred data seen from particular reading sites and scrutinised through cultural and other lenses. Readings, interpretations, are always determined by stance – by the reading site and by a commitment to that reading site and all that it entails. There are no neutral, objective or scientific readings. The question is about which reading site takes us nearer, or gives a better perspective on, the hope that God offers. For me, the reading site of marginalised urban people has the most merit at this point.

Also, it is not about “traditional” versus “authentic”. It is about Gospel, euaggelion, Good News. It is about liberation from the sin of the world which oppresses and kills. It is about freedom from human domination because only God rules. It is about Mary’s song. It is about the cross. It is about the tradition of the prophets and the covenant established by God with Abraham, Moses, etc. It is about resurrection. It is about hope in the world and the dawning of the Kingdom.

If a reading does not raise these issues then it might well be a wrong reading.

Jesus states clearly in Matthew 25:29 - For to all those who have, more will be given, and they will have an abundance; but from those who have nothing, even what they have will be taken away. The parable makes that clear by recounting the story of a very wealthy absentee landlord who gives the job of exploiting the local peasants to three slaves. He’s a hard, mean man who takes what is not his (he doesn’t deny the accusation) and upholds the forbidden practice of usury. The parable is a simple description of one of the causes behind the hard lives of the peasants and the reason for the situation set out in 25:29. It was a “true” story because it was the peasants’ reality, known and experienced. The telling of the story is a recognition of the need for good news, for liberation, and for a change in the way things are as part of God’s plan for people (covenant – a good word, Nigel M). It encourages the challenge and reveals where the challenge might lead. The interpretation which sees that and remembers that God the liberator hears the cries of the people has credibility – for me and for those I am speaking about. The parable is not a metaphor, or an analogy, or a “spiritual” lesson. It is a statement of what is and and what God wills to be transformed.

That view does not have a strong lobby. The “voice of the poor” is not a dominant reading – I have commentaries on Matthew on my shelves as well as articles, and there are plenty more in libraries and online and the “voice of the poor” does not dominate as far as I can see. Carter’s, “Matthew and the Margins” commentary comes close. Horsley, Herzog, Rorbaugh, Clevenot, and one or two others from the "liberation" starting point offer broader studies, but they could not be described as “mainstream” and they are barely represented in educational institutions.

The marginalised had and have no voice.

Jesus encouraged and encourages the marginalised to find their voice and use it, despite the risk. When that risk is taken and the challenge made, the likelihood is more oppression, more effective control, weeping and gnashing of teeth.

To add, this is not “reader response” methodology. (Much of that is about “feelings”.) This is about life denied even though promised by God, and it is about the Gospel of salvation. It is about the kind of people Jesus engaged with in his day – overwhelmingly the marginalised – being given the chance to engage with him today and offer their insights to a confused church imprisoned by the culture, ideology and practices of 21st century western life.

So, I cannot begin with many of the underlying questions in the string on this subject; they are secondary issues. The primary issue is about where Good News has an impact on those who need it. Matthew is not being marginalised; the results of his work are being engaged with in lively dialogue.

In an attempt to move away from all this, does anybody want to know about the far from generous, manipulative, greedy, abusive and cynical landowner playing divide and rule with the day labourers in the vineyard in Matthew 20:1-16?

Posted by Kwesi (# 10274) on :

Shamwari

quote:
To my mind it's simply a riposte against the religious leaders who had been given a revelation meant for all and who limited/confined/hoarded it for themselves.

To my mind this explanation is the most convincing because it focuses on an essential point, a central feature of parables, and is in conformity with Jesus' criticisms of the Jewish religious leadership throughout the gospels. [Overused]

Posted by Mamacita (# 3659) on :

quote:
Originally posted by grumpyoldman:
In an attempt to move away from all this, does anybody want to know about the far from generous, manipulative, greedy, abusive and cynical landowner playing divide and rule with the day labourers in the vineyard in Matthew 20:1-16?

An interesting topic. However, I suggest beginning a new thread to discuss this passage and letting those who want to continue the conversation on this thread to do so.

Posted by Nigel M (# 11256) on :

I hesitate to ignore the academic in its proper sense. What goes on in the hallowed portals of the seminary may indeed be way over the head of most mortals who, frankly, have other specialities they need to concentrate on each day, but the questions that specialists in theology have to deal with come from the floor of the house, the pew, the street. They usually begin with “But how do you know that...?”

Equally important, the output from that arena has informed the applications that preachers have drawn on (consciously or unconsciously) for as long as the question have been asked. So Christian tradition is academic. It cannot fail to be otherwise and the example of the great theologian preachers who make up the substance of Christian tradition is one that we should follow.

The issue here may just be one of presentation. The Urban Context website presents a position that opposes one interpretation (it calls the “authentic” one) with another (“normal” or “traditional”). Questions arise about that. It, however, the point is now being made that this it not about authentic versus traditional, then perhaps the presentation needs to be amended.

Let's assume the following as given for these purposes:

[1] There has been insufficient attention given in Christianity to those who are marginalised (by which I think is meant those who have no voice in the wider society – and no advocate on their behalf either).

[2] There has been a strand in the Christian application of biblical texts that has interpreted Matthew 25:14-30 to support those who are socially and economically secure.

[3] Suspicion is a good thing – it challenges presuppositions and can lead to paradigm shifts. A suspicion of any interpretation is therefore a good thing. One way to prod and poke at presuppositions is to use tools from outside of the Christian disciple to test readings.

[4] Jesus provides us with an example of how to manage the biblical texts, by wrestling over interpretation of them with the existing interpreters.

[5] We have a duty as Christians to act as advocates for those who are marginalised.

Given all that, we are still left with the questions that need answering if we are to present the authentic interpretation as a valid one. The main is always: What is the justification / validation an interpretation? Why should our version of the truth be any more public than another?

These are the street questions today (indeed, they have been for as long as we have records of human debate!).

Posted by Ad Orientem (# 17574) on :

quote:
Originally posted by grumpyoldman:
In an attempt to move away from all this, does anybody want to know about the far from generous, manipulative, greedy, abusive and cynical landowner playing divide and rule with the day labourers in the vineyard in Matthew 20:1-16?

I'll bite. I would argue that in this parable we see the calling of the Gentiles into the kingdom and the subsequent murmuring of the Jews.

Posted by grumpyoldman (# 18188) on :

I have no great desire to prolong this discussion unnecessarily with anymore of my possibly unhelpful comments, and I am happy to begin a new thread on Matthew 20:1-16 - as soon as I work out how to do it!

Posted by Nigel M (# 11256) on :

It's difficult to see how – given the context within which Matthew writes and the co-text he uses – the two parables in Mat. 25 (10 virgins & 3 servants) are not being controlled by the “Keep watch!” theme of chapter 24 and 26. Behind that lies the deeper theme of judgement and sanctions.

The Son of Man comes at an hour when he is not expected (24:36-44), just as the master returns unexpectedly as far as the wicked servant is concerned (24:50f), or the bridegroom comes unexpectedly as far as the lazy virgins are concerned, or the master returns to catch the third servant unprepared. Thus for the judgement.

Thus also for the sanctions: the Son of Man comes with destruction like that of Noah's day (24:37-39). Just so with the master of the wicked servant (cutting to pieces, casting out, torment), just so with the lazy virgins (shut out), and just so with the master of the lazy servant (cast out, torment).

Then comes the Judas episode, betrayal, and Jesus' plea that his disciples “Keep Watch!” (26:38-41).

The themes are just too strong to be ignored. That 'Son of Man' figure, as others have pointed out in the thread already, brings the judgement and sanctions in chapters 24 and 26. It's that which controls the interpretation of the figurative language bits inside the sandwich (ch. 25). Can it be anything but Matthew's intention to frame it this way?

I'd have to say that neither a reading that takes these chapters as support for those who are socially or economically secure, nor one that takes it as support for the poor and dispossessed people, seem to be mandated by Matthew. He's on about something else altogether...

UBB.classic^TM 6.5.0