conjectural navel gazing; jesus in lint form

Tripp,

Thanks for posting these sermons. Peculiar insight and wisdom.

You are welcome, SP.

Interesting, Tripp. I've never been able to make much headway with the parable of the talents myself. And given my line of work, I keep having to remind myself that in this case "talents" mean "money."

The parable usually registers with me as a stellar example of what can happen when the directions suck. What instructions did the master in the parable give his servants? I expect that this is just a historical and cultural hurdle -- "servants" as "employees, agents, underbrokers" rather than "house drudges." The master's expectations would have been understood without having to be stated explicitly, for the original audience.

For today's audience, I think it's a bit opaque, and therefore worth preaching on if one is inclined/employed to preach.

Megan,

That is what is so interesting about Ref's and Hoosier's sermons. They flesh that out a little bit. Again, the context matters. It seems that most people would have buried that money...to keep it safe.

Five talents is about 80 years worth (an estimation?) of wages and all in silver. That it was invested at all is so very odd. At least that is how I understand the parable.

It does need to be explained. This is, as you state, the task of the preacher and the teacher. Otherwise it is about one's ability to play piano. And, though interesting and important, it is not the point of the parable.

As you can probably tell, none of the sermons satisfied me with their interpretations of the parable. :)

I wonder what the parable would say if one of the servants had invested and gone bust. Actually LOST some significant part, or all, of the money. What would the Master's response have been?

Two points for Megan (and others). Firstly, the English word "talent" which we understand to mean "aptitudes" is indeed derived from this parable. It's indicative of how dominant the dominant interpretation really is. For centuries people understood this parable to be about the gifts of God. See below for how it came to be that we screwed it up.

Nevertheless, I often hear people in sermons try to go beyond the parable in their interpretation in a similar way to your suggestion. I don't think that's a profitable line of questioning, and here's why. That's not what the parable is about. If Jesus were speaking about risk, the parable would have been incomplete without a servant who loses everything. Assuming the parable is complete (and accurately recorded, and if we're not going to assume that, then we've got lots of other problems), then it must be about use, not about risk. Perhaps when the parable is rightly understood there is no chance of failure.

There are two other things in the parable that people often miss when preaching this passage: 1) I'm not convinced that the servants don't get to keep their "winnings." The first servant saysonly "See, I have made 5 more." It is the final servant who says, "Here is what is yours," to which the master replies, "take his talent and give it to the one who has ten talents." 2) The master is not actually mean as the lazy servant fears. Do this experiment, read the parable again, giving the master's words a sarcastic tone, "Oh you KNEW, did you?" That gives a different take.

The lectionary has done this passage a disservice by putting it in the middle of stewardship season, where so many preachers are tempted to make a parable about money be about money. No, No, NO, preachers. I didn't preach this Sunday, but if I had, I would have suggested that this parable is about the miraculous generous gifts of God. No instructions are given because the "talents" (whatever they are), belong to the receiver. Only the one who was ungrateful and fearful was criticized for wasting the gift. No servant lost money because no loss is possible. The things that come from the creator of the universe are unperishable. They can only grow from more to more as we use and delight in them.

Of course, as always, that's only my interpretation.

You are always so articulate, Micah. What is that like? Heh.

This is a good response, I think, to some of the more common interpretations of this parable. But I think Megan's point is still a valid one. As preachers we do need to explain what may have been the cultural assumptions. Otherwise the parable could be called The Case of the Lousy Directions or something like that.

Where I think there is wisdom in the "incomplete" nature of the instructions is that, at least with Matthew, the point is exactly that a world view shift is necessary. Otherwise we do exist where there is weeping and gnashing of teeth.

This is how I read the parable.

A worldview shift FROM what TO what, Tripp?

From the kingdom to the Kingdom of God. Use whatever metaphor you like...

...swords into ploughshares...etc.

Clear as mud. Would you try again?

Okay...sorry. Perhaps I am conflating too many ideas at once again.

Often the parables that are shared in the gospels suggest two modes of thinking. One is Godly. The other is something else. It will vary upon the context as to what non-Godly mode is being challenged. Will it be the Pharisees, the Sadducees or the Romans this week?

With this parable, at least how Matthew uses it, it would seem we are to take a look at how the Pharisees' practice and the supposed common wisdom of the day are unlike what Jesus is thinking and saying.

So, the assumptions the One Talent Servant received would have come from the Pharisees etc. The other two servants are operating under a different set of assumptions. Though perhaps ungracefully, this parable is trying to get us to come around to understand how God understands the world.

Well done! Thank you.