Parable of the talents

[Rain]

I'm teaching the lesson about work in Gospel Essentials on Sunday.  There is one passage of scriptures that I need some help with.  The parable of the talents in Matthew 25.

Quote

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

My question comes with the bold part.  I get that the Lord gave us everything we have (the talent).  I get that he wants us to work and multiply what he has given us. He gives us the seeds.  We plant them. He reaps and distributes the harvest and if we have done well then he rewards far greater than we can do on our own with the talent.  

But I feel like I am missing something and I can't figure out what it is.  It seems to be a banking/investing story, but then he throws in a planting/harvesting component.  Yes, farming is a type of investing, but still it FEELS like there is something more here. 

What am I missing? 

[CV75]

44 minutes ago, Rain said:

My question comes with the bold part.

I think He says it to convey that because it is clearly understood that He uses stewards to manage (to "sow" and to "straw") for Him and His benefit (an indicator of His vast wealth and power), He expects results and accepts no excuses. Advancing from steward to ruler doesn't change the relationship, but it does increase the privileges and authority to assign the stewardship of talents and goods to others.

Edited February 18, 2016 by CV75

[Ahab]

I see that lord judging/ assessing that person who managed his investment of that 1 talent he gave him based on what he knew or understood about that lord. Verse 26 mirrors verse 24.  And yet while knowing/ understanding that about him he still did nothing with the talent he had been given. Burying it in the earth counted as if he had done nothing with it,   And he knew that lord would have been able to reap something from it even if he had not sown it or given it to him. 

To me it means we need to at least try to do something with the talents/ money our lords give to us, more than just burying our money in the ground or in a safe or in a savings account that doesn't earn any interest. To try and then lose it would be better than to not do anything to try to increase our net worth.  That we should try to be a lord or like a lord that can reap where he has not sowed and gather from where he has not strawed.  Investing in others and in other's financial activities. 

The talents in this parable represent money, and the main message is that we should use/ invest our money as well as we can. 

[strappinglad]

I have been trying to imagine a scenario where I could reap where I haven't sown. Maybe if my uncle wins the lottery and subsequently dies and leaves it all to me, his only living relative. Even if I personally win the lottery I at least had to buy a ticket and in that way did a little sowing. Playing the stock market is similar I guess in that I might reap rewards from the natural events that I have no control over like war or frost.

Someone is going to have to explain to me what it means to " gather where I didn't straw " Straw is what is left over after the harvest of the grain. Straw is used for cattle bedding but it is not much good for feed.

As with all parables ,there are several layers of meaning. Obviously there is the top layer about money, but it could also apply to physical and mental talents as well a spiritual ones.

Edited February 18, 2016 by strappinglad

[CV75]

4 minutes ago, strappinglad said:

I have been trying to imagine a scenario where I could reap where I haven't sown. Maybe if my uncle wins the lottery and subsequently dies and leaves it all to me, his only living relative. Even if I personally win the lottery I at least had to buy a ticket and in that way did a little sowing. Playing the stock market is similar I guess in that I might reap rewards from the natural events that I have no control over like war or frost.

Someone is going to have to explain to me what it means to " gather where I didn't straw " Straw is what is left over after the harvest of the grain. Straw is used for cattle bedding but it is not much good for feed.

As with all parables ,there are several layers of meaning. Obviously there is the top layer about money, but it could also apply to physical and mental talents as well a spiritual ones.

"Strawed" is an archaic version "strew" -- http://www.biblestudytools.com/dictionary/strawed/ see also http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/strew

You reap and gather where you haven't sown or strewn by gaining wealth and power from the labors of the servants, stewards, and rulers to whom you have delivered goods to manage according to their role. When one has a master or boss, especially a wealthy and powerful one, he should know how this relationship is supposed to work and act accordingly, or be deemed unprofitable and suffer the consequences.

[VideoGameJunkie]

Is a talent a form of money or a talent like being good at the trumpet?

[ksfisher]

2 minutes ago, VideoGameJunkie said:

Is a talent a form of money or a talent like being good at the trumpet?

In this context the talent is referring to money.

[Mars]

imo it has zilch to do with money

it has everything to do with what light and knowledge we receive in life and our personal capacity to act on it.  it's what levels everyone, everywhere, in the plan of salvation.

notice that the 2 talent and 5 talent receivers were given the same reward.  the slothful servant didn't act upon what he was given.  the choice to act upon what you were given is what makes the master happy or angry with you.

if all you've been given is 1 talent - if all you have in life is a decidedly non-Christian paradigm of right and wrong but you act well within it, the Lord will count that as righteousness for you.  if you have the fullness of the Gospel and act well within it, you will have done just as much as the other guy.  (or gal, as the case may be.)

my two cents.

[ksfisher]

17 minutes ago, Mars said:

imo it has zilch to do with money

it has everything to do with what light and knowledge we receive in life and our personal capacity to act on it.  it's what levels everyone, everywhere, in the plan of salvation.

notice that the 2 talent and 5 talent receivers were given the same reward.  the slothful servant didn't act upon what he was given.  the choice to act upon what you were given is what makes the master happy or angry with you.

if all you've been given is 1 talent - if all you have in life is a decidedly non-Christian paradigm of right and wrong but you act well within it, the Lord will count that as righteousness for you.  if you have the fullness of the Gospel and act well within it, you will have done just as much as the other guy.  (or gal, as the case may be.)

my two cents.

The talent in the parable is a talent, a piece of money.  As with many parables mundane objects are used to teach greater spiritual truths.

[Mars]

2 minutes ago, ksfisher said:

The talent in the parable is a talent, a piece of money.  As with many parables mundane objects are used to teach greater spiritual truths.

indeed

[stemelbow]

It causes me a bit of a headache.  Does God reap where He does not sow and gather where He has not strawn?

So are those who hide it because God does not sow and straw have not or have something?  Because it's pretty confusing that that which he hath not is taken away as per verse 29.  \

In practice I can't see how to apply this.  I've never met someone who willfully hides that which is given and does not try to improve upon it, in some sense. 

This is a weird one, if you ask me.

I would just stick with the, "well we all ought to try and do good stuff else we be accused of hiding that which what given us". 

[Mars]

i take it as a euphemism for "you had no excuse.  you knew you couldn't get away with just hiding it and say hey, i had no idea!  don't get mad at me!"

but i have no epistemological (is that a word?) arguments to back it up.

[Mars]

also - rain - best of luck teaching this one.  it's probably my favorite parable.  i talk about it all the time when i'm in teaching situations.

[ksfisher]

3 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

 

In practice I can't see how to apply this.  I've never met someone who willfully hides that which is given and does not try to improve upon it, in some sense. 

 

Perhaps that's because they've successfully hidden it from you.  What if they "talent" the person has is the gospel?  Do we suppose that they Lord will be pleased with us if we refuse to share such a gift with others?

[strappinglad]

53 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

 

In practice I can't see how to apply this.  I've never met someone who willfully hides that which is given and does not try to improve upon it, in some sense. 

 

Meth addicts come to mind. Lots of talented people have buried their talents VERY deep.

[Ahab]

52 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

It causes me a bit of a headache.  Does God reap where He does not sow and gather where He has not strawn?

So are those who hide it because God does not sow and straw have not or have something?  Because it's pretty confusing that that which he hath not is taken away as per verse 29.  \

In practice I can't see how to apply this.  I've never met someone who willfully hides that which is given and does not try to improve upon it, in some sense. 

This is a weird one, if you ask me.

I would just stick with the, "well we all ought to try and do good stuff else we be accused of hiding that which what given us". 

I see God as someone without any money.  No talents to reap or sow with, and no straw to gather up either. Even while many people dedicate all or at least some of the money they have to him,  he still doesn't have any money of his own in any bank account or safe. That's what I think of as reaping (money) without sowing (any money).  In some sense he has some money but yet in another sense he doesn't have any.

I see verse 29 to mean hath not any earnings on the initial investment.  The original funds given by that lord were not his and he had not earned anything from it,  so that wasn't doing him any good. 

I knew an old lady once who had hundreds of thousands of dollars just piling up in a safe in her house,  and also a lot of checks she never bothered to cash.  She lived very frugally too,  as if she had very little or no money at all aside from enough to pay her utility bills and what not. I often thought,  what a waste! None of that was doing her any good. When she died her will stated that she wanted all of that to go to her church, the Catholic church.  I then thought that at least they know some good things to do with money.

[carbon dioxide]

The thing I hate about the parable is that it dumps on the little guy who got the least and celebrates those who were given more advantage at the beginning.  Perhaps if the guy with one talent got five talents or even two talents he would have been successful. Perhaps if the guy with 5 talents had only been given one would have done the same thing.  I guess of the three I like the guy with two talents and the real hero. They guy with 5 talents was set up for success at the beginning.  He really had to be an idiot to mess that up. The guy with one talent did nothing.  The guy with two talents was given less an advantage at the beginning but was still able to do something with it.

Edited February 19, 2016 by carbon dioxide

[janderich]

51 minutes ago, carbon dioxide said:

The thing I hate about the parable is that it dumps on the little guy who got the least and celebrates those who were given more advantage at the beginning.  Perhaps if the guy with one talent got five talents or even two talents he would have been successful. Perhaps if the guy with 5 talents had only been given one would have done the same thing.  I guess of the three I like the guy with two talents and the real hero. They guy with 5 talents was set up for success at the beginning.  He really had to be an idiot to mess that up. The guy with one talent did nothing.  The guy with two talents was given less an advantage at the beginning but was still able to do something with it.

This parable is not about lack. It is common to feel sorry for the person with just one talent, but in Jesus' day one talent was a very large sum of money, "The servant who received one talent received a sum of money equal to over 19 years worth of work..." (Ensign, Aug 1987, "Research and Perspectives"). The Lord is generous to all and even the one servant given the least is rich. 

The Lord's plans do not depend on our gains or losses, hence, "he reaps where he does not sow". The Master's purpose is to help us become good stewards by providing us the freedom to act. In the heavenly scheme of things the only way to fail is to not act. We do not need to be held hostage to concerns about what to do with what we are given, just as the steward with one talent needed to invest it. Go forth and do your best and the Lord will bless you! In other words, seize the day with all of your heart. Cast off your fears and because you have acted you will grow. That is the message as I understand it. 

[stemelbow]

16 hours ago, ksfisher said:

Perhaps that's because they've successfully hidden it from you.  What if they "talent" the person has is the gospel?  Do we suppose that they Lord will be pleased with us if we refuse to share such a gift with others?

I don't imagine anyone refuses to do so.  Sure people do it differently.  Some don't out flaunting their beliefs but share it in example and casual conversation.  But nobody does this, at least from what I've seen.

[stemelbow]

15 hours ago, strappinglad said:

Meth addicts come to mind. Lots of talented people have buried their talents VERY deep.

Feels like a generalization.  Talents in these passages are not people singing well, speaking comfortably in public or something.  It is something else given of God, it seems to me.

[Rain]

21 hours ago, stemelbow said:

It causes me a bit of a headache.  Does God reap where He does not sow and gather where He has not strawn?

So are those who hide it because God does not sow and straw have not or have something?  Because it's pretty confusing that that which he hath not is taken away as per verse 29.  \

In practice I can't see how to apply this.  I've never met someone who willfully hides that which is given and does not try to improve upon it, in some sense. 

This is a weird one, if you ask me.

I would just stick with the, "well we all ought to try and do good stuff else we be accused of hiding that which what given us". 

Yes. Since this is gospel essentials I definitely want to talk about applying it and depending on who is in the class he may make for some interesting discussions.  I don't know for sure that I am going to use the passage in class yet, but wanted to see if I could understand it more before I did.

21 hours ago, Mars said:

also - rain - best of luck teaching this one.  it's probably my favorite parable.  i talk about it all the time when i'm in teaching situations.

How come? Tell me more please.  

[Rain]

18 hours ago, carbon dioxide said:

The thing I hate about the parable is that it dumps on the little guy who got the least and celebrates those who were given more advantage at the beginning.  Perhaps if the guy with one talent got five talents or even two talents he would have been successful. Perhaps if the guy with 5 talents had only been given one would have done the same thing.  I guess of the three I like the guy with two talents and the real hero. They guy with 5 talents was set up for success at the beginning.  He really had to be an idiot to mess that up. The guy with one talent did nothing.  The guy with two talents was given less an advantage at the beginning but was still able to do something with it.

Do you like the Luke version better?

Quote

12 He said therefore, A certain nobleman went into a far country to receive for himself a kingdom, and to return.

 13 And he called his ten servants, and delivered them ten pounds, and said unto them, Occupy till I come.

 14 But his citizens hated him, and sent a message afterhim, saying, We will not have this man to reign over us.

 15 And it came to pass, that when he was returned,having received the kingdom, then he commanded theseservants to be called unto him, to whom he had given themoney, that he might know how much every man hadgained by trading.

 16 Then came the first, saying, Lord, thy pound hathgained ten pounds.

 17 And he said unto him, Well, thou good servant:because thou hast been faithful in a very little, have thouauthority over ten cities.

 18 And the second came, saying, Lord, thy pound hathgained five pounds.

 19 And he said likewise to him, Be thou also over fivecities.

 20 And another came, saying, Lord, behold, here is thypound, which I have kept laid up in a napkin:

 21 For I feared thee, because thou art an austere man: thoutakest up that thou layedst not down, and reapest thatthou didst not sow.

 22 And he saith unto him, Out of thine own mouth will Ijudge thee, thou wicked servant. Thou knewest that I wasan austere man, taking up that I laid not down, andreaping that I did not sow:

 23 Wherefore then gavest not thou my money into thebank, that at my coming I might have required mine ownwith usury?

 24 And he said unto them that stood by, Take from himthe pound, and give it to him that hath ten pounds.

 25 (And they said unto him, Lord, he hath ten pounds.)

 26 For I say unto you, That unto every one which hath shall be given; and from him that hath not, even that he hath shall be taken away from him.

 

[Mars]

28 minutes ago, Rain said:

Yes. Since this is gospel essentials I definitely want to talk about applying it and depending on who is in the class he may make for some interesting discussions.  I don't know for sure that I am going to use the passage in class yet, but wanted to see if I could understand it more before I did.

How come? Tell me more please.  

PM sent

 

[Ahab]

19 hours ago, carbon dioxide said:

The thing I hate about the parable is that it dumps on the little guy who got the least and celebrates those who were given more advantage at the beginning.  Perhaps if the guy with one talent got five talents or even two talents he would have been successful. Perhaps if the guy with 5 talents had only been given one would have done the same thing.  I guess of the three I like the guy with two talents and the real hero. They guy with 5 talents was set up for success at the beginning.  He really had to be an idiot to mess that up. The guy with one talent did nothing.  The guy with two talents was given less an advantage at the beginning but was still able to do something with it.

I think of a talent as enough money to pay for a monthly bus pass.  Or maybe an annual pass way back then, but I'll stick with a month for my explanation. 

One guy gets enough money for 5 monthly bus passes, another one 2, and the other for only 1 month.

The guy who had enough money for 5 monthly bus passes had lots of time to look for a good job and found one that paid enough not only for his living expenses but also enough for him to save up enough money for another 5 monthly passes plus enough to replenish the money he had for the first 5 passes.  He probably could have saved even more but he likes to eat pretty high on the hog and that lord showed up for a report before he could save up any more money.

The guy with enough money for only 2 monthly passes also found a good job but he spent even more of his money than the first guy and he wasn't very interested in saving his money either, but still he saved double the money he was originally given and he figured that would probably be enough to please his lord.

The guy with only 1 talent didn't spend it on anything but he also didn't use it for anything, so his lord just took it away from him since he wasn't using it and gave it to somebody else who probably would, based on his portfolio.