Q: Why is it so hard to overturn the system?
A: Systems are made to serve the top, and so if the very bottom is unhappy with the system, who cares? They are powerless in society and so powerless to change the system. Standing alone doesn't do any good. But if people who do have power decide to fight for the cause and turn against the system, then those on top might fall.
Monday, November 26, 2007
Parable Draft #1
One of the most important things to point out about the Parable of the Talents is that it is not an allegory, as is frustratingly common amongst interpreters. The master is not God, the servants are not us, and the talents are money, not one’s special abilities. That being said, the Parable of the Talents is more about exposing
a corrupt system and suggesting a way to successfully rebel.
First century Palestinian society was run exclusively by rich businessmen and politicians. Naturally these elites were greedy and looking to progress their wealth and so they exploited the poor by, for example, making loans that couldn’t be paid off and then seizing land, as in the Parable of the Tenants. Because a small group of elites cannot possibly be content with whatever wealth they make on their own, they need help and so a bureaucracy was also in place serving the elite. Both the elite and his bureaucracy of servants were looking to make money, and so again the poor would fall victim to the scheming of both the servant and the elite. This brings us to the parable.
A rich man is going on a journey, likely having to do with business. In order to keep a profit going at home he leaves a lot of money to his top circle of servants. Though he doesn’t say it, it is expected of them to invest and return at least 100% of the profit. The 1st two servants go off and immediately go and increase the talents because the sooner they meet the master’s requirements, the sooner they can start to make a profit for themselves. By having his servants do the dirty work, the rich man is avoiding whatever ridicule might be thrown his way . In this way he is not directly committing any wrong. The point that Jesus is trying to make here is that the entire system of making a profit is centered around using the poor (reemphasizing the poor being the cornerstone of society, as mentioned in ________).
The third servant, instead of investing and therefore progressing the corruptness of the system, buries the one talent that he is given. This shows that he is not being selfish: he is not taking the talents for himself, which, since he is rebelling against the system he might as well have done. Then again he doesn’t give it to the poor. He saves the talent for his master showing that he is honest and sober and buries it to keep it safe. He doesn’t invest it, and therefore doesn’t contribute to the unjust system of exploitation. He does this because he is tired of giving up his morals in order to progress. When the master returns, he is pleased by the first to servants and customarily gives them more responsibility. When he gets to the 3rd servant, the third servant tells him basically that he is an ass, and has used his power unjustly in order to benefit himself. As an example he uses the making of loans to poor farmers. These loans they couldn’t have paid, and so the master would take their land (given to them by God) and would use them for his own economic purposes . BECAUSE LAND WAS A LARGE FACTOR IN DETERMINING CLASS, IT ALSO ELIMINATED WHATEVER SLIGHT ECONOMIC COMPETITION THEY POSED FOR THE RICH. Therefore he grows and harvests food on land that he owns, but land that is not rightly his, as the 3rd servant claims. “You are a corrupt man, stomping on others. This money is yours and you deserve no more than what is yours”. The master retaliates by calling the servant wicked and lazy, therefore deteriorating his image and the merit of his accusation. The talent is taken and he is cast out from the household of the elite.
Because the master has maligned him, the servant has no chance at being rehired by anyone else and so consequently is forced to become poor. But even as a poor man he would be rejected because he was once a man who served the hated elite and whose job was to hurt the very people he now must live with. He acted alone and so now must continue alone.
Being that Jesus is addressing the common people, the reactions to this parable would be mixed. They would support him in rebelling against the unjust system and in spitting in the face of the master. But they would also probably not sympathize with him when he is outcasted.
So what is this parable about? It definitely calls to attention that that the system is unjust. But if Jesus wanted to incite rebellion the parable would have been more reflective of that. Also, a lot of his other parables (for example the Parable of the Tenants) and teachings would be poured down the drain. Instead, the parable suggests that the poor look upwards for support. In the 3rd servant, Jesus’ audience can see that not all of the elite’s servants are corrupt and that some might want to change the system. As it stood then, the elites status at the top of the hierarchal pyramid rested on the servants, who rested on the poor. If the poor, instead of acting alone as the servant did, were to rally the support of those in the servant class who felt the same as the 3rd servant, then the elites might fall from their perch without the support of the middle section. This would all be without a violent uprising (hopefully). This plan of attack still applies today. If the powerless are being wronged, they find someone who has power, however small, and through them their voices are heard, other people of power are made aware of the situation, and a movement takes place until the problem is dealt with. In the same way Jesus is suggesting to his people away to better their lives.
Walter Herzog, Unmasking the World of Oppression: The Vulnerability of the Whistle-Blower (Louisville: Westminster John Knox Press, 1994), 161-162.
Some Journal
I’m sorry Mr. Sutphin but I forgot my Herzog article and the Journal citation in my locker. I know the footnotes are a big deal to you so please don’t screw me over to hard. I hope Mexico was nice.
a corrupt system and suggesting a way to successfully rebel.
First century Palestinian society was run exclusively by rich businessmen and politicians. Naturally these elites were greedy and looking to progress their wealth and so they exploited the poor by, for example, making loans that couldn’t be paid off and then seizing land, as in the Parable of the Tenants. Because a small group of elites cannot possibly be content with whatever wealth they make on their own, they need help and so a bureaucracy was also in place serving the elite. Both the elite and his bureaucracy of servants were looking to make money, and so again the poor would fall victim to the scheming of both the servant and the elite. This brings us to the parable.
A rich man is going on a journey, likely having to do with business. In order to keep a profit going at home he leaves a lot of money to his top circle of servants. Though he doesn’t say it, it is expected of them to invest and return at least 100% of the profit. The 1st two servants go off and immediately go and increase the talents because the sooner they meet the master’s requirements, the sooner they can start to make a profit for themselves. By having his servants do the dirty work, the rich man is avoiding whatever ridicule might be thrown his way . In this way he is not directly committing any wrong. The point that Jesus is trying to make here is that the entire system of making a profit is centered around using the poor (reemphasizing the poor being the cornerstone of society, as mentioned in ________).
The third servant, instead of investing and therefore progressing the corruptness of the system, buries the one talent that he is given. This shows that he is not being selfish: he is not taking the talents for himself, which, since he is rebelling against the system he might as well have done. Then again he doesn’t give it to the poor. He saves the talent for his master showing that he is honest and sober and buries it to keep it safe. He doesn’t invest it, and therefore doesn’t contribute to the unjust system of exploitation. He does this because he is tired of giving up his morals in order to progress. When the master returns, he is pleased by the first to servants and customarily gives them more responsibility. When he gets to the 3rd servant, the third servant tells him basically that he is an ass, and has used his power unjustly in order to benefit himself. As an example he uses the making of loans to poor farmers. These loans they couldn’t have paid, and so the master would take their land (given to them by God) and would use them for his own economic purposes . BECAUSE LAND WAS A LARGE FACTOR IN DETERMINING CLASS, IT ALSO ELIMINATED WHATEVER SLIGHT ECONOMIC COMPETITION THEY POSED FOR THE RICH. Therefore he grows and harvests food on land that he owns, but land that is not rightly his, as the 3rd servant claims. “You are a corrupt man, stomping on others. This money is yours and you deserve no more than what is yours”. The master retaliates by calling the servant wicked and lazy, therefore deteriorating his image and the merit of his accusation. The talent is taken and he is cast out from the household of the elite.
Because the master has maligned him, the servant has no chance at being rehired by anyone else and so consequently is forced to become poor. But even as a poor man he would be rejected because he was once a man who served the hated elite and whose job was to hurt the very people he now must live with. He acted alone and so now must continue alone.
Being that Jesus is addressing the common people, the reactions to this parable would be mixed. They would support him in rebelling against the unjust system and in spitting in the face of the master. But they would also probably not sympathize with him when he is outcasted.
So what is this parable about? It definitely calls to attention that that the system is unjust. But if Jesus wanted to incite rebellion the parable would have been more reflective of that. Also, a lot of his other parables (for example the Parable of the Tenants) and teachings would be poured down the drain. Instead, the parable suggests that the poor look upwards for support. In the 3rd servant, Jesus’ audience can see that not all of the elite’s servants are corrupt and that some might want to change the system. As it stood then, the elites status at the top of the hierarchal pyramid rested on the servants, who rested on the poor. If the poor, instead of acting alone as the servant did, were to rally the support of those in the servant class who felt the same as the 3rd servant, then the elites might fall from their perch without the support of the middle section. This would all be without a violent uprising (hopefully). This plan of attack still applies today. If the powerless are being wronged, they find someone who has power, however small, and through them their voices are heard, other people of power are made aware of the situation, and a movement takes place until the problem is dealt with. In the same way Jesus is suggesting to his people away to better their lives.
Walter Herzog, Unmasking the World of Oppression: The Vulnerability of the Whistle-Blower (Louisville: Westminster John Knox Press, 1994), 161-162.
Some Journal
I’m sorry Mr. Sutphin but I forgot my Herzog article and the Journal citation in my locker. I know the footnotes are a big deal to you so please don’t screw me over to hard. I hope Mexico was nice.
Wednesday, November 14, 2007
Parable documentation
1) Read the parable once, then carefully read each verse
2) Analyze each action, object, and person while thinking of how these images would be interpreted by Jesus’ followers. This is reading in between the lines and will expand the meaning of the story. It also will require some research.
A rich man is going on a journey, likely having to do with business. In order to keep a profit going at home he leaves a lot of money to his top circle of servants. Though he doesn’t say it, it is expected of them to invest and return at least 100% of the profit. The 1st two servants go off and immediately go and increase the talents because the sooner they meet the master’s requirements, the sooner they can start to make a profit for themselves. This whole process of gaining more money for themselves and the master involves exploitation of the poor. The third servant, instead of investing and therefore progressing the corruptness of the system, buries the one talent. This shows that he is not being selfish: he is not taking the talents for himself, which, sense he is rebelling against the system he might as well have done. Then again he doesn’t give it to the poor. He saves the talent for his master showing that he is honest and sober and buries it to keep it safe. He doesn’t invest it, and therefore doesn’t contribute to the unjust system of exploitation. He probably does this because he is tired of giving up his morals in order to progress. When the master returns, he is pleased by the first to servants and customarily gives them more responsibility. When he gets to the 3rd servant, the third servant tells him basically that he is an ass. He, like many/most/all of the elites of his time, would have made loans for poor farmers. These loans they couldn’t have paid, and so the master would take their land (given to them by God) and would use them for his own economic purposes (ALTHOUGH WHEN NECRESSARY THE RICH WOULD HELP THE POOR IF IT IN TURN HELPED THEM). BECAUSE LAND WAS A LARGE FACTOR IN DETERMINING CLASS, IT ALSO ELIMINATED WHATEVER SLIGHT ECONOMIC COMPETITION THEY POSED FOR THE RICH. Therefore he grows and harvests food on land that he owns, but land that is not rightly his, as the 3rd servant claims. “You are a corrupt man, stomping on others. This money is yours and you deserve no more than what is yours”. The master retaliates by calling the servant wicked and lazy, therefore deteriorating his image and the merit of his accusation. The talent is taken and he is cast out from the household of the elite and consequently is forced to become poor. The poor reject him though because he was once a man who served the hated elite and whose job was to hurt the very people he now must live with. He acted alone and so now must continue alone.
3) What is the problem and how do the characters respond (or instigate) it? Pay close attention to the rich and powerful and how they abuse their power and expect too much out of the lower people.
THIS IS NOT A REPRESENTATION OF GOD BUT INSTEAD SHOWS THE FLAWS OF SOCIETY. The problem is that the rich man expected the servants to invest his money and exploit the poor. The 1st two servants think nothing of it and conform to the system of unjustness in making a profit. The 3rd servant has suffered inner torment because THE ENTIRE SYSTEM IS BASED ON EXPLOITATION and doesn’t want to be a part of it. He must pay for his actions even though those actions are just.
4) Identify what the parable is about. What prompted Jesus to tell the story? What is Jesus saying about society and/or KoG and how does the problem need to be solved? How does it relate to our lives today (this isn’t yet the actual modern situation, but I think it helps to understand if you replace ancient images with modern ones) This might later help with identifying a modern situation though)
5) Identify a modern situation with similar characters and actions (learn a lot about it). What is the problem? How is/was it solved? What are its parallels? According to what Jesus’ message in the parable is, how should this problem be solved?
6) Know your shit, make a killer presentation with costumes and props and videos, get A’s. But most importantly MAKE SURE YOU LEARNED SOMETHING!!!!!!!!
2) Analyze each action, object, and person while thinking of how these images would be interpreted by Jesus’ followers. This is reading in between the lines and will expand the meaning of the story. It also will require some research.
A rich man is going on a journey, likely having to do with business. In order to keep a profit going at home he leaves a lot of money to his top circle of servants. Though he doesn’t say it, it is expected of them to invest and return at least 100% of the profit. The 1st two servants go off and immediately go and increase the talents because the sooner they meet the master’s requirements, the sooner they can start to make a profit for themselves. This whole process of gaining more money for themselves and the master involves exploitation of the poor. The third servant, instead of investing and therefore progressing the corruptness of the system, buries the one talent. This shows that he is not being selfish: he is not taking the talents for himself, which, sense he is rebelling against the system he might as well have done. Then again he doesn’t give it to the poor. He saves the talent for his master showing that he is honest and sober and buries it to keep it safe. He doesn’t invest it, and therefore doesn’t contribute to the unjust system of exploitation. He probably does this because he is tired of giving up his morals in order to progress. When the master returns, he is pleased by the first to servants and customarily gives them more responsibility. When he gets to the 3rd servant, the third servant tells him basically that he is an ass. He, like many/most/all of the elites of his time, would have made loans for poor farmers. These loans they couldn’t have paid, and so the master would take their land (given to them by God) and would use them for his own economic purposes (ALTHOUGH WHEN NECRESSARY THE RICH WOULD HELP THE POOR IF IT IN TURN HELPED THEM). BECAUSE LAND WAS A LARGE FACTOR IN DETERMINING CLASS, IT ALSO ELIMINATED WHATEVER SLIGHT ECONOMIC COMPETITION THEY POSED FOR THE RICH. Therefore he grows and harvests food on land that he owns, but land that is not rightly his, as the 3rd servant claims. “You are a corrupt man, stomping on others. This money is yours and you deserve no more than what is yours”. The master retaliates by calling the servant wicked and lazy, therefore deteriorating his image and the merit of his accusation. The talent is taken and he is cast out from the household of the elite and consequently is forced to become poor. The poor reject him though because he was once a man who served the hated elite and whose job was to hurt the very people he now must live with. He acted alone and so now must continue alone.
3) What is the problem and how do the characters respond (or instigate) it? Pay close attention to the rich and powerful and how they abuse their power and expect too much out of the lower people.
THIS IS NOT A REPRESENTATION OF GOD BUT INSTEAD SHOWS THE FLAWS OF SOCIETY. The problem is that the rich man expected the servants to invest his money and exploit the poor. The 1st two servants think nothing of it and conform to the system of unjustness in making a profit. The 3rd servant has suffered inner torment because THE ENTIRE SYSTEM IS BASED ON EXPLOITATION and doesn’t want to be a part of it. He must pay for his actions even though those actions are just.
4) Identify what the parable is about. What prompted Jesus to tell the story? What is Jesus saying about society and/or KoG and how does the problem need to be solved? How does it relate to our lives today (this isn’t yet the actual modern situation, but I think it helps to understand if you replace ancient images with modern ones) This might later help with identifying a modern situation though)
5) Identify a modern situation with similar characters and actions (learn a lot about it). What is the problem? How is/was it solved? What are its parallels? According to what Jesus’ message in the parable is, how should this problem be solved?
6) Know your shit, make a killer presentation with costumes and props and videos, get A’s. But most importantly MAKE SURE YOU LEARNED SOMETHING!!!!!!!!
Tuesday, November 13, 2007
Research Article
Okay, so Mr. Sutphin if you are reading this before I talk to you, google had nothing really. Anything that sounded remotely promising cost $14 and everything else was bull crap (much like this). I didn't even bother MLAing this because I know it's incorrect but I hope you can help me.
AN INTERPRETATION OF MATTHEW 24—25
Part XXXVIII
by Thomas Ice
“For it is just like a man about to go on a journey, who called his
own slaves, and entrusted his possessions to them. And to one he
gave five talents, to another, two, and to another, one, each
according to his own ability; and he went on his journey.
Immediately the one who had received the five talents went and
traded with them, and gained five more talents. In the same
manner the one who had received the two talents gained two more.
But he who received the one talent went away and dug in the
ground, and hid his master’s money. Now after a long time the
master of those slaves came and settled accounts with them. And
the one who had received the five talents came up and brought five
more talents, saying, ‘Master, you entrusted five talents to me;
see, I have gained five more talents.’ His master said to him, ‘Well
done, good and faithful slave; you were faithful with a few things, I
will put you in charge of many things, enter into the joy of your
master.’ The one also who had received the two talents came up
and said, ‘Master, you entrusted to me two talents; see, I have
gained two more talents.’ His master said to him, ‘Well done, good
and faithful slave; you were faithful with a few things, I will put
you in charge of many things; enter into the joy of your master.’
And the one also who had received the one talent came up and
said, ‘Master, I knew you to be a hard man, reaping where you did
not sow, and gathering where you scattered no seed. ‘And I was
afraid, and went away and hid your talent in the ground; see, you
have what is yours.’ But his master answered and said to him,
‘You wicked, lazy slave, you knew that I reap where I did not sow,
and gather where I scattered no seed. ‘Then you ought to have put
my money in the bank, and on my arrival I would have received
my money back with interest. ‘Therefore take away the talent from
him, and give it to the one who has the ten talents.’ For to
everyone who has shall more be given, and he shall have an
abundance; but from the one who does not have, even what he does
have shall be taken away. And cast out the worthless slave into
the outer darkness; in that place there shall be weeping and
gnashing of teeth.”
—Matthew 25:14–30
The second section of Matthew 25 is one of the most well-known parables of Jesus.
The parable of the faithful and unfaithful stewards continues lessons for the nation of
Israel in light of Christ’s return, which was noted in Matthew 24. This parable is often
preached on today without notation of its context relating to Israel and Christ’s return.
When we examine parallel accounts of this parable (Mark 13:34 and Luke 19:11–27) they
both are also in the context of the second coming and judgment. The account in
Matthew contains the most extensive version.
Page 2
THE PARABLE OF THE TALENTS
In keeping with previous parables in Christ’s Discourse, this one deals with the issue
of faithfulness. How will a true son of the kingdom act during the time of his master’s
absence? Will he be faithful to his lord or will he be a worthless servant? The servants
were evaluated for how they dispensed their responsibilities during the absence of their
master. Upon the return of the master, those servants that were faithful in the
execution of their duties were rewarded with greater responsibility and wealth during
the future reign of the king. “So here the heirs of the kingdom will receive greater
blessing, while the ones who do not inherit it will be shut off from even an opportunity
for entrance,” notes Dr. Toussaint. “Those who do receive rewards will be rewarded
according to their faithfulness and not the measure of their work.”1
This parable relates to Israel’s accountability before God for their stewardship that
will occur in conjunction with Christ second coming. Dr. Toussaint tells us:
The last three parables give practical instructions in the light of the King’s
coming to judge and to reign. The principle which underlies each is the same
one which was given in the Sermon on the Mount (Matthew 7:16–21). The
fruit of faithfulness and preparedness would indicate the character of those
living in the days before His coming. In each parable, character is manifested
by works. This thought forms the key to the following passage which deals
with the judgment of the nations. (Matthew 25:31–46).2
Thus, we see that the parables of the ten virgins (25:1–13) and the talents (25:14–30)
deal with Israel’s faithfulness in light of her responsibility, while the remainder of
Matthew 25 (31–46) deals with Messiah’s judgments of the nations, which will relate to
how they treat the Jewish remnant during the tribulation. In both instances, Israel and
the nations, there will be a mixed response. Some will be prepared and faithful, while
others (most likely most) will not.
DISPENSATIONAL TRUTH PICTURED
In this parable Jesus portrays Himself as the Master of a house who is set to embark
on a journey and He gives various responsibilities to His servants. This parable
contains all of the basic elements dispensationalists3 teach are related to the testing of
the various ages within God’s plan for history.4
A leading spokesman for dispensationalism is Charles Ryrie, who notes that The
Oxford English Dictionary defines a theological dispensation as “a stage in a progressive
revelation, expressly adapted to the needs of a particular nation or period of time . . .
also, the age or period during which a system has prevailed.”5 The English word
“dispensation” translates the Greek noun oikonomía, often rendered “administration” in
modern translations. The verb oikonoméô refers to a manager of a household.6 “In the
New Testament,” notes Ryrie, “dispensation means to manage or administer the affairs
of a household, as, for example, in the Lord’s story of the unfaithful steward in Luke
16:1-13.”7
The Greek word oikonomía is a compound of oíkos meaning “house” and nómos
meaning “law.” Taken together “the central idea in the word dispensation is that of
managing or administering the affairs of a household.”8
Page 3
The various forms of the word dispensation appears in the New Testament
twenty times. The verb oikonoméô is used once in Luke 16:2, where it is
translated “to be a steward.” The noun oikonómos appears ten times (Luke
12:42; 16:1, 3, 8; Rom. 16:23; 1 Cor. 4:1, 2; Gal. 4:2; Titus 1:7; 1 Pet. 4:10), and is
usually translated “steward” or “manager” (but “treasurer” in Rom. 16:23).
The noun oikonomía is used nine times (Luke 16:2, 3, 4; 1 Cor. 9:17; Eph. 1:10;
3:2, 9; Col. 1:25; 1 Tim. 1:4). In these instances it is translated variously
(“stewardship,” “dispensation,” “administration,” “job,” “commission”).9
Dr. Ryrie formulates the following description and definition of dispensationalism:
Dispensationalism views the world as a household run by God. In this
household-world God is dispensing or administering its affairs according to
His own will and in various stages of revelation in the process of time. These
various stages mark off the distinguishably different economies in the
outworking of His total purpose, and these different economies constitute the
dispensations. The understanding of God’s differing economies is essential to
a proper interpretation of His revelation within those various economies.10
Dr. Ryrie notes the following characteristics of a dispensation as viewed by
dispensationalist:
• two parties are always involved
• specific responsibilities
• accountability as well as responsibility
• a change may be made at any time unfaithfulness is found in the existing
administration
• God is the one to whom men are responsible
• faithfulness is required of the subordinate party
• a stewardship may end at any time
• dispensations are connected with the mysteries of God
• dispensations and ages are connected ideas
• there are at least three dispensation (likely seven).11
When we compare the dispensations with the specific characteristics of this parable
we note the following: Each dispensation begins with a responsibility given to the
steward. In this parable the stewards are the slaves (25:14) and their responsibility is
faithful stewardship (25:19). While this parable pictures some who were faithful, each
dispensation within God’s plan ends in failure, as depicted by the unfaithful servant
(25:18, 26). Thus, each age ends in judgment, as God holds his stewards responsible for
their actions, which is see in the unfaithful slave who is cast “into outer darkness”
(25:30).
The scenario in this parable provides a paradigm for how God manages human
history based upon His revelation (the Bible). In spite of Satan and the unbelieving
world, God knows what He is doing throughout history. He is in control and even
though we currently live in a time when God is allowing mankind to go their own way
and do their own thing, judgment day is coming when He will hold mankind
accountable for their stewardship towards God.
Page 4
(To Be Continued . . .)
ENDNOTES
1
Stanley D. Toussaint, Behold The King: A Study of Matthew (Portland: Multnomah Press, 1980), p.
287.
2
Toussaint, Behold The King, p. 288.
3
For an explanation of what we mean by dispensationalism see the chapter “What is
Dispensationalism?” in Mark Hitchcock and Thomas Ice, The Truth Behind Left Behind: A Biblical
View of the End Times (Sisters, OR: Multnomah Publishers, 2004), pp. 178–90.
4
See our chart on “The Dispensations” in Tim LaHaye and Thomas Ice, Charting The End Times: A
Visual Guide to Understanding Bible Prophecy (Eugene, OR: Harvest House Publishers, 2001), pp.
81–83.
5
Charles C. Ryrie, What Is Dispensationalism? (Pamphlet published by Dallas Theological
Seminary, [1980], 1986), p. 1.
6
Walter Bauer, A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature,
a translation and adaptation by William F. Arndt & F. Wilbur Gingrich (Chicago: The University of
Chicago Press, 1957), p. 562.
7
Ryrie, What Is Dispensationalism? p. 1.
8
Charles C. Ryrie, Dispensationalism (Chicago: Moody Press, [1966], 1995). p.25.
9
Ryrie, Dispensationalism, p.25.
10
Ryrie, Dispensationalism, p. 29.
11
Ryrie, Dispensationalism, pp. 26-27.
AN INTERPRETATION OF MATTHEW 24—25
Part XXXVIII
by Thomas Ice
“For it is just like a man about to go on a journey, who called his
own slaves, and entrusted his possessions to them. And to one he
gave five talents, to another, two, and to another, one, each
according to his own ability; and he went on his journey.
Immediately the one who had received the five talents went and
traded with them, and gained five more talents. In the same
manner the one who had received the two talents gained two more.
But he who received the one talent went away and dug in the
ground, and hid his master’s money. Now after a long time the
master of those slaves came and settled accounts with them. And
the one who had received the five talents came up and brought five
more talents, saying, ‘Master, you entrusted five talents to me;
see, I have gained five more talents.’ His master said to him, ‘Well
done, good and faithful slave; you were faithful with a few things, I
will put you in charge of many things, enter into the joy of your
master.’ The one also who had received the two talents came up
and said, ‘Master, you entrusted to me two talents; see, I have
gained two more talents.’ His master said to him, ‘Well done, good
and faithful slave; you were faithful with a few things, I will put
you in charge of many things; enter into the joy of your master.’
And the one also who had received the one talent came up and
said, ‘Master, I knew you to be a hard man, reaping where you did
not sow, and gathering where you scattered no seed. ‘And I was
afraid, and went away and hid your talent in the ground; see, you
have what is yours.’ But his master answered and said to him,
‘You wicked, lazy slave, you knew that I reap where I did not sow,
and gather where I scattered no seed. ‘Then you ought to have put
my money in the bank, and on my arrival I would have received
my money back with interest. ‘Therefore take away the talent from
him, and give it to the one who has the ten talents.’ For to
everyone who has shall more be given, and he shall have an
abundance; but from the one who does not have, even what he does
have shall be taken away. And cast out the worthless slave into
the outer darkness; in that place there shall be weeping and
gnashing of teeth.”
—Matthew 25:14–30
The second section of Matthew 25 is one of the most well-known parables of Jesus.
The parable of the faithful and unfaithful stewards continues lessons for the nation of
Israel in light of Christ’s return, which was noted in Matthew 24. This parable is often
preached on today without notation of its context relating to Israel and Christ’s return.
When we examine parallel accounts of this parable (Mark 13:34 and Luke 19:11–27) they
both are also in the context of the second coming and judgment. The account in
Matthew contains the most extensive version.
Page 2
THE PARABLE OF THE TALENTS
In keeping with previous parables in Christ’s Discourse, this one deals with the issue
of faithfulness. How will a true son of the kingdom act during the time of his master’s
absence? Will he be faithful to his lord or will he be a worthless servant? The servants
were evaluated for how they dispensed their responsibilities during the absence of their
master. Upon the return of the master, those servants that were faithful in the
execution of their duties were rewarded with greater responsibility and wealth during
the future reign of the king. “So here the heirs of the kingdom will receive greater
blessing, while the ones who do not inherit it will be shut off from even an opportunity
for entrance,” notes Dr. Toussaint. “Those who do receive rewards will be rewarded
according to their faithfulness and not the measure of their work.”1
This parable relates to Israel’s accountability before God for their stewardship that
will occur in conjunction with Christ second coming. Dr. Toussaint tells us:
The last three parables give practical instructions in the light of the King’s
coming to judge and to reign. The principle which underlies each is the same
one which was given in the Sermon on the Mount (Matthew 7:16–21). The
fruit of faithfulness and preparedness would indicate the character of those
living in the days before His coming. In each parable, character is manifested
by works. This thought forms the key to the following passage which deals
with the judgment of the nations. (Matthew 25:31–46).2
Thus, we see that the parables of the ten virgins (25:1–13) and the talents (25:14–30)
deal with Israel’s faithfulness in light of her responsibility, while the remainder of
Matthew 25 (31–46) deals with Messiah’s judgments of the nations, which will relate to
how they treat the Jewish remnant during the tribulation. In both instances, Israel and
the nations, there will be a mixed response. Some will be prepared and faithful, while
others (most likely most) will not.
DISPENSATIONAL TRUTH PICTURED
In this parable Jesus portrays Himself as the Master of a house who is set to embark
on a journey and He gives various responsibilities to His servants. This parable
contains all of the basic elements dispensationalists3 teach are related to the testing of
the various ages within God’s plan for history.4
A leading spokesman for dispensationalism is Charles Ryrie, who notes that The
Oxford English Dictionary defines a theological dispensation as “a stage in a progressive
revelation, expressly adapted to the needs of a particular nation or period of time . . .
also, the age or period during which a system has prevailed.”5 The English word
“dispensation” translates the Greek noun oikonomía, often rendered “administration” in
modern translations. The verb oikonoméô refers to a manager of a household.6 “In the
New Testament,” notes Ryrie, “dispensation means to manage or administer the affairs
of a household, as, for example, in the Lord’s story of the unfaithful steward in Luke
16:1-13.”7
The Greek word oikonomía is a compound of oíkos meaning “house” and nómos
meaning “law.” Taken together “the central idea in the word dispensation is that of
managing or administering the affairs of a household.”8
Page 3
The various forms of the word dispensation appears in the New Testament
twenty times. The verb oikonoméô is used once in Luke 16:2, where it is
translated “to be a steward.” The noun oikonómos appears ten times (Luke
12:42; 16:1, 3, 8; Rom. 16:23; 1 Cor. 4:1, 2; Gal. 4:2; Titus 1:7; 1 Pet. 4:10), and is
usually translated “steward” or “manager” (but “treasurer” in Rom. 16:23).
The noun oikonomía is used nine times (Luke 16:2, 3, 4; 1 Cor. 9:17; Eph. 1:10;
3:2, 9; Col. 1:25; 1 Tim. 1:4). In these instances it is translated variously
(“stewardship,” “dispensation,” “administration,” “job,” “commission”).9
Dr. Ryrie formulates the following description and definition of dispensationalism:
Dispensationalism views the world as a household run by God. In this
household-world God is dispensing or administering its affairs according to
His own will and in various stages of revelation in the process of time. These
various stages mark off the distinguishably different economies in the
outworking of His total purpose, and these different economies constitute the
dispensations. The understanding of God’s differing economies is essential to
a proper interpretation of His revelation within those various economies.10
Dr. Ryrie notes the following characteristics of a dispensation as viewed by
dispensationalist:
• two parties are always involved
• specific responsibilities
• accountability as well as responsibility
• a change may be made at any time unfaithfulness is found in the existing
administration
• God is the one to whom men are responsible
• faithfulness is required of the subordinate party
• a stewardship may end at any time
• dispensations are connected with the mysteries of God
• dispensations and ages are connected ideas
• there are at least three dispensation (likely seven).11
When we compare the dispensations with the specific characteristics of this parable
we note the following: Each dispensation begins with a responsibility given to the
steward. In this parable the stewards are the slaves (25:14) and their responsibility is
faithful stewardship (25:19). While this parable pictures some who were faithful, each
dispensation within God’s plan ends in failure, as depicted by the unfaithful servant
(25:18, 26). Thus, each age ends in judgment, as God holds his stewards responsible for
their actions, which is see in the unfaithful slave who is cast “into outer darkness”
(25:30).
The scenario in this parable provides a paradigm for how God manages human
history based upon His revelation (the Bible). In spite of Satan and the unbelieving
world, God knows what He is doing throughout history. He is in control and even
though we currently live in a time when God is allowing mankind to go their own way
and do their own thing, judgment day is coming when He will hold mankind
accountable for their stewardship towards God.
Page 4
(To Be Continued . . .)
ENDNOTES
1
Stanley D. Toussaint, Behold The King: A Study of Matthew (Portland: Multnomah Press, 1980), p.
287.
2
Toussaint, Behold The King, p. 288.
3
For an explanation of what we mean by dispensationalism see the chapter “What is
Dispensationalism?” in Mark Hitchcock and Thomas Ice, The Truth Behind Left Behind: A Biblical
View of the End Times (Sisters, OR: Multnomah Publishers, 2004), pp. 178–90.
4
See our chart on “The Dispensations” in Tim LaHaye and Thomas Ice, Charting The End Times: A
Visual Guide to Understanding Bible Prophecy (Eugene, OR: Harvest House Publishers, 2001), pp.
81–83.
5
Charles C. Ryrie, What Is Dispensationalism? (Pamphlet published by Dallas Theological
Seminary, [1980], 1986), p. 1.
6
Walter Bauer, A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature,
a translation and adaptation by William F. Arndt & F. Wilbur Gingrich (Chicago: The University of
Chicago Press, 1957), p. 562.
7
Ryrie, What Is Dispensationalism? p. 1.
8
Charles C. Ryrie, Dispensationalism (Chicago: Moody Press, [1966], 1995). p.25.
9
Ryrie, Dispensationalism, p.25.
10
Ryrie, Dispensationalism, p. 29.
11
Ryrie, Dispensationalism, pp. 26-27.
Herzog
I. A Lingering Problem
(A) Who is the man going on the journey?
1. Good images of the master
a. 3rd servants description ‡ is he God?
b. Most common to discredit servant ‡ he is attempting to make the master look bad so he doesn’t, blaming master for own failure, or just doesn’t understand master (misinterprets his actions)
2. Bad images
a. Why are there 2 images? (the 3rd servant’s and the 1st and 2nd)
b. 3rd Servant’s image appeals to commoners b/c like hated landlord
c. Selfish, cares only about money, expects way to much
d. Rich guy bent on making profit while gone by dividing it amongst his servants and expecting them to invest its
3. Vv 29 and 30 prolly added later, prolly shouldn’t be used
II. The Retainers of the Great Households
(A) The Place of the Household in the Ancient World
1. The Household (oikos)
a. 3 levels: Household (not peasant, elite), city, kingdom/empire
b. Members of the households in charge of harvesting, gathering/storing, selling, and exporting
c. Houses = trading houses
d. Classroom showing young men ideologies ‡ grew up with money values
2. The City (polis)
a. Collection of households
b. Controlled surrounding area politically and economically
c. Men from oikos run polis and surrounding area ‡ “politics”
3. The Kingdom
a. Patchwork of cities run by a patchwork of households
(B) Household Bureaucracies and Their Retainers
1. Entire system built on houses of elites ‡ require internal bureaucracy help
a. Incl. stewards, accountants, tutors etc
b. Household bur imitates imperial bur ‡ hierarchically, most trusted + competent at top
c. More wealth = bigger bur = more status and power
2. Servants left w/ money when heads need to travel
a. Protect interests + expand influence (investments, new schemes, rep city)
b. Needed to entrust parts of household to servants to keep accumulation of $
c. Though not slaves, depended on goodwill of master, could also make a profit themselves but had to be discreet while gaining
III. The Nobleman and his Retainers
(A) The Distribution of Wealth
1. Fact that he is traveling ‡ wealthy
a. Few travel far from village
b. Pilgrimage to Jerusalem one of few times
c. Remained in villages until forced out; even as wanderers kept near
2. Based on interpretation he calls them in order of ability (more Matthewesque) or rank
a. Retainer would gain power based on how well he could handle the money
3. Opening scene: giving to money to his highest circle of servants
a. One talent = 15 years wages
b. So much ‡ not a test or evaluation of his servant’s skill
c. Might provide an opportunity to raise even higher in rank (depends on translation)
(B) The Business Venture
1. How investments worked
a. Investor liable for 1/2, merchant liable for other half
b. Profit could be split many ways; largest part went to investor cuz capital more important than labor
c. Higher risk ‡ higher profit
2. Unspoken expectations
a. No agreements formally made
b. Profit of 100% is minimum accepted under laws of Hammurabi ‡ default
c. 2 retainers double their talents ‡ acceptable or excellent profit (backed by master’s actions)
3. What’s in it for the servants?
a. 2 servants go to work at once even tho master gone for long time
b. Reflects zeal to please master but also eagerness to make own profit
c. 1st must double profit then make enough for themselves not to be noticed but to be a good amount
d. Master aware of system, actually encourages b/c he is not hurt, they do dirty work, exploit others ‡ anger not directed at him
e. Elites use wealth to make loans to peasant farmers (interest 60-200%)Not to make profit but to foreclose
f. To make more profit servants would have partnered w/ manuf of luxury items b/c only markets were for elite
g. In order to profit had to exploit merchant partner or loaned farmer
4. The first 2 servants are exactly alike
a. Both exploit in same way
b. Jesus’ aud would have identified b/c dealt w/ and contended
c. Exploitation contended w/ Roman and Temple tax
5. Why elites took land from peasants
a. Displace peasants from land ‡ reduce status/competition
b. Become dependant on master; he can control their exports
c. Remove land ‡ remove reluctance to change old ways and conform to their demands (no power)
d. Torah obligates wealthy to lend to poor w/o taking interest (obviously not followed)
e. Servants would have implemented this system
(C) The Reckoning
1. The 1st 2
a. Each has gained higher position
b. Enter in joy of your master ‡ midst of others’ suffering
2. The 3rd servant
3. Planting in ground
a. Should have entered in partnership w/ poor which is better than offing charity
b. Instead took best precaution against lost; shows that sober, not careless
4. The meaning of the speech
a. Might be just whining for not having as much confidence and trust
b. Identifies master for monster he is, shames him
c. Says he is exploiting others on land that does not belong to him
d. Wastefulness is sign of wealth ‡ comment on aristocratic lifestyle (master never denies b/c wasting is honorable)
e. Shows honor by returning master’s money
5. Consequences to servant 3
a. Spoke horrible truth ‡ must demean so that words will carry no weight
b. Banishment, poverty, misery certain death awaits being outside circle
c. Peasants would outcast as being former oppressor
d. Acting alone ‡ no support from anywhere ‡ no protection
6. Why does he do it?
a. Burying talents ‡ not being used to exploit ‡ disassociates w/ system
b. He is revealing what everyone knows but is too afraid to say
c. He knows what the price is for his actions but feels bad for being part of the corrupt system and would rather accept fate than continue
7. The audiences reaction and what it would mean to them
a. Speech would have shocked because exposes and defies system
b. Said what they always wanted to say
c. Teaches when one acts alone one suffers alone
d. Raises questions of what would happen if servants and peasants rose against oppressor, how would system change is servants did right and didn’t exploit?
e. Also forces them to look at people in new light: are they really that cruel or do they understand what is going on too?
(A) Who is the man going on the journey?
1. Good images of the master
a. 3rd servants description ‡ is he God?
b. Most common to discredit servant ‡ he is attempting to make the master look bad so he doesn’t, blaming master for own failure, or just doesn’t understand master (misinterprets his actions)
2. Bad images
a. Why are there 2 images? (the 3rd servant’s and the 1st and 2nd)
b. 3rd Servant’s image appeals to commoners b/c like hated landlord
c. Selfish, cares only about money, expects way to much
d. Rich guy bent on making profit while gone by dividing it amongst his servants and expecting them to invest its
3. Vv 29 and 30 prolly added later, prolly shouldn’t be used
II. The Retainers of the Great Households
(A) The Place of the Household in the Ancient World
1. The Household (oikos)
a. 3 levels: Household (not peasant, elite), city, kingdom/empire
b. Members of the households in charge of harvesting, gathering/storing, selling, and exporting
c. Houses = trading houses
d. Classroom showing young men ideologies ‡ grew up with money values
2. The City (polis)
a. Collection of households
b. Controlled surrounding area politically and economically
c. Men from oikos run polis and surrounding area ‡ “politics”
3. The Kingdom
a. Patchwork of cities run by a patchwork of households
(B) Household Bureaucracies and Their Retainers
1. Entire system built on houses of elites ‡ require internal bureaucracy help
a. Incl. stewards, accountants, tutors etc
b. Household bur imitates imperial bur ‡ hierarchically, most trusted + competent at top
c. More wealth = bigger bur = more status and power
2. Servants left w/ money when heads need to travel
a. Protect interests + expand influence (investments, new schemes, rep city)
b. Needed to entrust parts of household to servants to keep accumulation of $
c. Though not slaves, depended on goodwill of master, could also make a profit themselves but had to be discreet while gaining
III. The Nobleman and his Retainers
(A) The Distribution of Wealth
1. Fact that he is traveling ‡ wealthy
a. Few travel far from village
b. Pilgrimage to Jerusalem one of few times
c. Remained in villages until forced out; even as wanderers kept near
2. Based on interpretation he calls them in order of ability (more Matthewesque) or rank
a. Retainer would gain power based on how well he could handle the money
3. Opening scene: giving to money to his highest circle of servants
a. One talent = 15 years wages
b. So much ‡ not a test or evaluation of his servant’s skill
c. Might provide an opportunity to raise even higher in rank (depends on translation)
(B) The Business Venture
1. How investments worked
a. Investor liable for 1/2, merchant liable for other half
b. Profit could be split many ways; largest part went to investor cuz capital more important than labor
c. Higher risk ‡ higher profit
2. Unspoken expectations
a. No agreements formally made
b. Profit of 100% is minimum accepted under laws of Hammurabi ‡ default
c. 2 retainers double their talents ‡ acceptable or excellent profit (backed by master’s actions)
3. What’s in it for the servants?
a. 2 servants go to work at once even tho master gone for long time
b. Reflects zeal to please master but also eagerness to make own profit
c. 1st must double profit then make enough for themselves not to be noticed but to be a good amount
d. Master aware of system, actually encourages b/c he is not hurt, they do dirty work, exploit others ‡ anger not directed at him
e. Elites use wealth to make loans to peasant farmers (interest 60-200%)Not to make profit but to foreclose
f. To make more profit servants would have partnered w/ manuf of luxury items b/c only markets were for elite
g. In order to profit had to exploit merchant partner or loaned farmer
4. The first 2 servants are exactly alike
a. Both exploit in same way
b. Jesus’ aud would have identified b/c dealt w/ and contended
c. Exploitation contended w/ Roman and Temple tax
5. Why elites took land from peasants
a. Displace peasants from land ‡ reduce status/competition
b. Become dependant on master; he can control their exports
c. Remove land ‡ remove reluctance to change old ways and conform to their demands (no power)
d. Torah obligates wealthy to lend to poor w/o taking interest (obviously not followed)
e. Servants would have implemented this system
(C) The Reckoning
1. The 1st 2
a. Each has gained higher position
b. Enter in joy of your master ‡ midst of others’ suffering
2. The 3rd servant
3. Planting in ground
a. Should have entered in partnership w/ poor which is better than offing charity
b. Instead took best precaution against lost; shows that sober, not careless
4. The meaning of the speech
a. Might be just whining for not having as much confidence and trust
b. Identifies master for monster he is, shames him
c. Says he is exploiting others on land that does not belong to him
d. Wastefulness is sign of wealth ‡ comment on aristocratic lifestyle (master never denies b/c wasting is honorable)
e. Shows honor by returning master’s money
5. Consequences to servant 3
a. Spoke horrible truth ‡ must demean so that words will carry no weight
b. Banishment, poverty, misery certain death awaits being outside circle
c. Peasants would outcast as being former oppressor
d. Acting alone ‡ no support from anywhere ‡ no protection
6. Why does he do it?
a. Burying talents ‡ not being used to exploit ‡ disassociates w/ system
b. He is revealing what everyone knows but is too afraid to say
c. He knows what the price is for his actions but feels bad for being part of the corrupt system and would rather accept fate than continue
7. The audiences reaction and what it would mean to them
a. Speech would have shocked because exposes and defies system
b. Said what they always wanted to say
c. Teaches when one acts alone one suffers alone
d. Raises questions of what would happen if servants and peasants rose against oppressor, how would system change is servants did right and didn’t exploit?
e. Also forces them to look at people in new light: are they really that cruel or do they understand what is going on too?
Sunday, November 4, 2007
Interpretation Methodology
1) Read the parable once, then carefully read each verse
2) Analyze each action, object, and person while thinking of how these images would be interpreted by Jesus’ followers. This is reading in between the lines and will expand the meaning of the story. It also will require some research.
3) What is the problem and how do the characters respond (or instigate) it? Pay close attention to the rich and powerful and how they abuse their power and expect too much out of the lower people.
4) Identify what the parable is about. What prompted Jesus to tell the story? What is Jesus saying about society and/or KoG and how does the problem need to be solved? How does it relate to our lives today (this isn’t yet the actual modern situation, but I think it helps to understand if you replace ancient images with modern ones. This might later help with identifying a modern situation though)
5) Identify a modern situation with similar characters and actions (learn a lot about it). What is the problem? How is/was it solved? What are its parallels? According to what Jesus’ message in the parable is, how should this problem be solved?
6) Know your shit, make a killer presentation with costumes and props and videos, get A’s. But most importantly MAKE SURE YOU LEARNED SOMETHING!!!!!!!!
2) Analyze each action, object, and person while thinking of how these images would be interpreted by Jesus’ followers. This is reading in between the lines and will expand the meaning of the story. It also will require some research.
3) What is the problem and how do the characters respond (or instigate) it? Pay close attention to the rich and powerful and how they abuse their power and expect too much out of the lower people.
4) Identify what the parable is about. What prompted Jesus to tell the story? What is Jesus saying about society and/or KoG and how does the problem need to be solved? How does it relate to our lives today (this isn’t yet the actual modern situation, but I think it helps to understand if you replace ancient images with modern ones. This might later help with identifying a modern situation though)
5) Identify a modern situation with similar characters and actions (learn a lot about it). What is the problem? How is/was it solved? What are its parallels? According to what Jesus’ message in the parable is, how should this problem be solved?
6) Know your shit, make a killer presentation with costumes and props and videos, get A’s. But most importantly MAKE SURE YOU LEARNED SOMETHING!!!!!!!!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)