Matthew 25:14-30

5. Illustration of the wise and foolish stewards (25:14-30)

14 For it is as when a man, going into another country, called his own servants, and delivered unto them his goods. 15 And unto one he gave five talents, to another two, to another one; to each according to his several ability; and he went on his journey. 16 Straightway he that received the five talents went and traded with them, and made other five talents. 17 In like manner he also that received the two gained other two. 18 But he that received the one went away and digged in the earth, and hid his lord's money. 19 Now after a long time the lord of those servants cometh, and maketh a reckoning with them. 20 And he that received the five talents came and brought other five talents, saying, Lord, thou deliveredst unto me five talents; lo, I have gained other five talents. 21 His lord said unto him, Well done, good and faithful servant: thou hast been faithful over a few things, I will set thee over many things; enter thou into the joy of thy lord. 22 And he also that received the two talents came and said, Lord, thou deliveredst unto me two talents: lo, I have gained other two talents. 23 His lord said unto him, Well done, good and faithful servant: thou hast been faithful over a few things, I will set thee over many things; enter thou into the joy of thy lord. 24 And he that had received the one talent came and said, Lord, I knew thee that thou art a hard man, reaping where thou didst not sow, and gathering where thou didst not scatter; 25 and I was afraid, and went away, and hid thy talent in the earth: lo, thou hast thine own. 26 But 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 did not scatter: 27 thou oughtest therefore to have put my money to the bankers, and at my coming I should have received back mine own with interest. 28 Take ye away therefore the talent from him, and give it unto him that hath the ten talents. 29 For unto everyone that hath shall be given, and he shall have abundance: but from him that hath not, even that which he hath shall be taken away. 30 And cast ye out the unprofitable servant into the other darkness: there shall be the weeping and the gnashing of teeth.

THOUGHT QUESTIONS

a.

Jesus began this parable by saying, For it will be as when a man going on a journey, etc. What, exactly, is like a man going? With what does the word For, connect this story? Do you think this for is important to the interpretation of this parable?

b.

Why did this lord distribute his goods so unequally among his servants? Should he have done things this way?

c.

Do you see anything in the situation that would indicate that the master's explicit wish was that each steward make him a profit? Do you see any kind of contract that would condemn the unprofitable servant and justify the others?

d.

Why did the lord praise and reward the first two stewards equally?

e.

What, if anything, does the expression, Enter into the joy of your master, indicate about our final reward for faithful service?

f.

If this parable is often thought to teach something about Christian stewardship, what is it doing in the middle of Jesus-' sermon on the Second Coming? What is the connection between stewardship and the Last Day?

g.

If the philosophy is correct that righteousness should be its own reward and that we should do nothing for rewards, then how are we to understand Jesus who does not hesitate to tell stories like this one which promises high rewards to those who serve Him well? Does this not constitute a pay-off for being good and actually corrupt that good by its self-seeking, calculating motivation?

h.

Would not the lord in Jesus-' story have gotten further with his third servant if, instead of intrusting him with but one talent, he had placed, say, two or even five at his disposal? Would not this show of trust have communicated more to the servant, motivating him to do a better job than he did? What is the lord's fundamental reason for not intrusting any more to him? Why did he give him as much as he did?

i.

When the lazy steward returned the one talent, why did not his lord accept it back?

j.

How does this illustration carry forward concepts introduced in previous stories Jesus told? What are these points of contact with the other stories?

k,

What do you think motivated the one-talent man to hide it rather than invest it?

1.

On what reasonable basis could that third servant have dared describe his boss the way he does? Was there any truth in the accusations he uses as justification for his fear?

m.

How do you explain the fact that the master did not debate his servant's evaluation? Was the evaluation too true and well-known to doubt? If not, then why did the lord use the servant's own analysis to condemn him?

n.

The master ordered: Cast out the unprofitable servant. How does this description of the wicked, slothful servant serve to underline the point of Jesus-' story?

o.

This entire story is centered around making money, either by profitable trading or by banking interest, and the only person condemned is the one who made no money. How do you harmonize this concept with Blessed are you poor, for yours is the kingdom of God (Luke 6:20), Sell your possessions and give alms; provide yourselves with purses that do not grow old, with a treasure in the heavens that does not fail (Luke 12:33), etc.? If it is wrong to make lots of money, how could Jesus condemn the steward who did not make a profit with his master's money? But, if one keeps making himself poor through charity, how can he ever become a good and faithful (= profitable) servant by seeking to make more money?

p.

How is it possible to take from a man what he does not have? Jesus affirmed, From him who has not, even what he has will be taken away. Explain.

PARAPHRASE

The way God operates His Kingdom, which not incidentally affects the manner in which our lives are to be spent watching, may be compared to a man about to leave home on a trip. He called his slaves in and put his property in their hands. To the first one he committed some money equivalent to ten years-' pay for the average day-laborer. To another servant he handed over the equivalent of roughly four years-' pay. The third man received the equivalent of two years-' pay. The owner distributed this money to each man according to his relative ability. Then he went on his journey.
The man who had received the largest sum went immediately to put the money to work, and doubled his sum. Similarly, the second man did business with his, and doubled his sum. However, the slave who had been trusted with the smallest sum, went and dug a hole in the ground and buried his master's money.
A long time later the master of those slaves returned and asked them to give account of his money. The one who had been entrusted with the largest sum stepped up, bringing his profit. -Sir,-' he said, -you entrusted me with five talents. Look: I have doubled your capital!-' His master responded, -Good work, you excellent, trustworthy servant! You have shown you can be faithful with a small amount. I will put you in charge of something big! Come and share the happiness of your master!-'
Likewise, the man who had the two talents came forward, -Master,-' he began, -you handed me two talents. Look here: I have earned you two more!-' To him the master replied, -Splendid! Sound and reliable servant, you have proven yourself trustworthy in a small way. I will trust you with greater things. Come and share your master's happiness!-'
Then the man who had received the smallest amount came forward. -Master,-' he began, -I knew you were a harsh, stubborn man that enriches himself at the expense of others. So, I was scared and went and buried your money in the ground. Here is your money back.-' But his lord answered him, -You ungenerous, lazy servant! You thought that I enrich myself at others-' expense? In that case, you should have placed my money on deposit with the bankers and, upon my return, I would have received my capital with interest! So, take the money away from him and give it to the man who now has the most. The person who uses well what he has will be entrusted with more, and he will have plenty. But the person who thinks he has nothing will forfeit even his nothing. Also, fling that good-for-nothing servant into the darkness outside where people mourn and grind their teeth in frustrated rage!-'

SUMMARY

During Jesus-' absence, the present moment is a stewardship of God's goods entrusted to us according to our individual ability to handle them. These are to be invested for His advantage, because an accounting will be given. However, there is promotion for good stewards of God's grace, but also crushing humiliation for those who do nothing to promote the Lord's profit. Thus, the period before Jesus returns must be put to responsible use in productive service for Him.

NOTES

Matthew 25:14 For it is as when a man. For. as (Hòsper gàr) unquestionably binds this stewardship story to what precedes it, but how? What is the connection?

1.

McGarvey (Matthew-Mark, 217) argues that the kingdom of God in general is not the immediate subject, but, rather, the way we are to watch, thus linking our story to the conclusion drawn from the parable of the ten virgins (Matthew 25:13). But this overemphasizes his objection to supplying the Kingdom of heaven as subject, as did the King James translators. However, the larger, contextual picture painted in Matthew 24:25 is truly the Kingdom of God, i.e. how He intends for us to understand and respond to various phases of His government. (See note on Matthew 25:1.) So, Jesus has not really changed the subject, but merely amplifies one more phase of it.

2.

Rather than bog down in technical definitions of God's Kingdom, Jesus focuses all attention on activity, the human actions that will be judged by their true Lord and King. So, by saying, For, He proceeds to explain how best to watch in light of the fact that His return date cannot be known. The Talents Parable, therefore, teaches that our time, now graciously conceded to us by God, is most profitably used, not as the foolish virgins of the previous story, but in faithful, fruitful use of everything He entrusts us with for His glory, while the time and opportunity are ours, as the five wise virgins and the businesslike stewards of this story. The Virgins Parable rightly precedes the Talents Parable, because the former lays stress on the constant state of individual readiness and the need for spiritual power within, while the latter emphasizes the devoted, individual labor required to achieve it. Alford (I, 251) noted another antithesis: the foolish virgins thought their part too easy, while the wicked steward thought his part too hard. Continuing to develop his faithful and wise servant theme (Matthew 24:45; see on Matthew 25:2), Jesus now illustrates how conscientious His disciple must be in seeking his Lord's advantage through correct management of His affairs during His absence.

A man, going into another country. Once more our Lord implies that His absence from earth is going to require some time (cf. Matthew 21:33) and that His return would not be imminent (cf. Luke 19:11 f.), a point repeated later (Matthew 25:19). In this way He continues to correct the mistaken notion involved in the disciples-' original questions that assumed that His Second Coming and the end of the world would be more or less contemporaneous with Jerusalem's fall. (Cf. Matthew 24:3; Matthew 24:8; Matthew 24:14.)

He called his own servants (= slaves, doùloi). Modern views of ancient slavery cannot but warp our understanding of this illustration, since the relationship between masters and slaves in antiquity was not always that of ranting tyrant and grovelling serf. Rather, as Jesus implies, slaves could be entrusted with any phase of their master's affairs, even to the point of handling great sums of money. (Cf. Matthew 18:24.) Merely because someone sold himself into slavery to pay debts does not mean that he necessarily toiled at menial labor until his debt to his owner was paid. Were he a skilled artist, musician or teacher captured in war, or perhaps a good businessman fallen on hard times, his skill would be especially valuable to his lord. Hence, he could be expected to labor in his area of expertise for his master's profit.

These called are his own servants who, because part of his household, could be trusted with the employment he now has in mind. Here are Jesus-' disciples and all those who believe on Him through their word and who accept responsibility to Him as His stewards. These are not worldlings nor hirelings, but His own property (toùs idìous doùlous). Just because they belong to Him, He has a proper, prior right to their time and effort.

Nevertheless, we may not exclude unbelieving worldlings altogether from stewardship responsibility, even if they are not contemplated primarily by Jesus-' parable. In fact, the ungodly are God's property too. Whether they acknowledge or understand it or not, their Creator has a proper and prior demand on them too. While there is a true, unique sense in which believers alone are servants of Jesus Christ, this does not rescind that ancient and unchanged demand that every man fear God and give Him glory. This is the eternal gospel to every man (Revelation 14:6). The original, high calling of man was to be a responsible steward of God's creation (Genesis 1:2; Psalms 8).

Where the former illustration featured women entrusted with a responsibility for which they must give account, this story introduces men similarly accountable, almost as if Jesus wished to place the relative human responsibility of both sexes on an equal footing before God. (Cf. Matthew 24:40 f.; Galatians 3:28; Colossians 3:11.)

As the sequel shows, he delivered unto them his goods for investing his liquid assets profitably for him during his absence. While not expressly stated here, this was clearly his expectation and his servants so understood it. Not putting all his eggs in one basket, this wise owner divided his assets among several agents whom he trusted to be responsible. Not merely logical business procedure, his plan ennobled and motivated his stewards to prove themselves worthy of such a trust. In fact, he was turning over all this wealth to men who were but slaves. This should impress them with the importance of their high responsibility and leave them determined to rise to the challenge this great honor entailed.

However, for the man in the street in first-century Palestine, such a parable as this is unquestionably wrong-headed. The Kingdom of God, for him, meant reigning, relaxing and rejoicing, not rigorous responsibility! But Jesus does not flinch from prospecting a hard, concentrated, risk-filled TOIL that requires attentiveness, creativity, determination and other requisites to turn a profit for God. Jesus thinks that our ability to work now determines our qualification to rule later, Hence, we are currently being tested. Shortly before Jesus ascended to the heavenly Throne, He acted precisely as this man by placing into the hands of His own people the Gospel and its precious promises of spiritual life, the means to obtain it and the gifts to develop it (Matthew 28:18 ff.; Mark 16:15 ff.; Luke 24:44-51; John 20:21 ff.; Acts 1:1-9). Then, upon conferring the administration of His affairs to His servants, He too left at once. Thus, the stewards of this parable represent, not merely first-century Christians, but His administrators of all ages.

Matthew 25:15 And unto one he gave five talents, to another two, to another one; to each according to his several ability; and he went on his journey. His goods were talents of silver (tà argùria, Matthew 25:27), quantities of money on the value of which see note on Matthew 18:24. Therefore, these talents are not primarily natural abilities, as this story is often interpreted to mean. While its principles justly apply to natural talents, this parable's initial focus is money. In fact, that the two kinds of talents are distinct in Jesus-' story is proven by three considerations:

1.

Because the distribution of talents occurred on the basis of native ability, or natural talents, the monetary talents must refer to the distribution of something each steward did not possess prior to that moment.

2.

Verse 28 contemplates the taking away of the talent from one steward and giving it to another. Talents are something external to one's native abilities and of which, presumably, he cannot be deprived without violence to his nature.

3.

The talents distributed are uniquely the master's goods, something the slaves did not have until their lord entrusted them to them.

And yet it would be useless hair-splitting to attempt to distinguish further the wealth of Jesus Christ from our own natural ability, since God is at work in us both to will and to work according to His good purpose (Philippians 2:13; Ephesians 3:20; Isaiah 26:12). All that we are or have has been given to us by God for His purposes and glory. So, His gifts disbursed to us may be seen as distinct from our natural talents, even if these latter are empowered by the further abilities with which He endows us, whether these endowments be natural or supernatural. (Cf. Romans 12:3-8; Romans 1 Corinthians 12-14; 1 Peter 4:8-11.) Therefore, in the reality intended by Jesus-' illustration, these talents represent the variety and complexity of means whereby we can be useful to the Lord.

To each according to his several ability. Lying on the surface of this parable is the startling fact that it is simply not true that all Christians are equal. This sagacious master knows the personal character and business ability of each man and dispenses his possessions accordingly (Romans 12:3-8; 1 Corinthians 12:11; 1 Corinthians 12:18). How irresponsible he would have been to have required, or even expected, a servant with less ability to produce as much as one more experienced. So, in reality, the distribution commensurate to each one's individual ability was evenly matched, even though the sums differed. Merely because God saves everyone on the same basis (Galatians 3:28) does not mean He treats us all alike. Our regeneration does not dissolve our individual differences. Our bountiful Lord knows the capacity of the vessel into which He pours His grace, the ability of the person to whom He supplies His plenteous opportunities to serve. His very discrimination is evidence of His love, because He is too kind a Master to load any of His servants beyond their strength to bear it, and too wise an Administrator to want it any other way (Revelation 2:24; John 16:12; 1 Corinthians 10:13). Happy, then, is the steward who understands that to each according to his several ability means that none may

unfavorably compare the quantity of service opportunities he possesses with that of others who have more or less than he. Finally, if the master's goods were all distributed to each according to his ability, we see that Christ's earthly interests are entrusted to all His people. There is no Christian who is not gifted in some way with sufficient means to fulfill his own share of the Lord's work. However great or small his part, for this he is fully responsible.

Further, as the sequel shows, there is indicated here a certain liberty of action, as if the stewards could invest their lord's money more or less as they saw fit, so long as their management brought him the desired profit. Here is fore pictured our magnificent Christian liberty in that Jesus has not legislated nor predetermined thousands of everyday choices whereby we may demonstrate our usefulness to Him. This is decided, rather, by our own free response to every advantage and blessing He furnishes for us to employ in His service. Our free investment of His goods is controlled only by His very general directives that govern our free enterprise by furnishing generalized indications of His will without predetermining our specific choices. (Cf. 1 Corinthians 6-10; Romans 14:15; see my Vol. III, 382ff.)

And he went on his journey. Jesus-' Ascension is the key element that makes our stewardship exciting, because His absence leaves us fully responsible and because His unknown return date keeps us working against time to get as much done as possible for His glory before our personal, final accounting,

At this point some manuscripts insert the word, straightway (duthéôs), which other manuscripts and editors connect with verse 16. Connected with verse 15, the sentence would be: Then he (the master) went away at once. Although this word, when connected with either sentence, would make excellent sense, which is better?

The Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament (63) rejects the connection with verse 15, not only because the limited textual evidence for connecting immediately with verse 16 is of good quality, but also because this reading best explains the origin of the others. Further, Matthew generally connects euthéôs with what follows. However, (1) what would Matthew's general habit prove conclusively about one special case that may in fact be the exception? (2) Manuscripts that connect immediately with verse 15 are not only more numerous, but in some cases contemporary with the few that connect it with what follows. (3) The sense of the parable must be determined from the words, not the words from the sense of the parable.

The Textual Commentary argues, There is no point in the master's departing immediately; there is much point in the servant's immediately setting to work. On the contrary, if Jesus intended to hint that He would leave shortly after entrusting His earthly affairs to His disciples,which, in fact, He did through the Great Commission,then immediately, interpreted in harmony with the history, belongs to the foregoing sentence. This point is crucial in order to correct the false notion of disciples who supposed He must personally supervise a long, earthly Messianic reign from a material throne in Jerusalem. Not only is His absence a doctrine they must accept, but also the suddenness of His departure.

Two Intelligent, Trustworthy Executives

Matthew 25:16 Straightway he that received the five talents went and traded with them, and made other five talents. If, on the other hand, straightway belongs rightly with this verse, this servant is pictured as recognizing the preciousness of every opportunity to promote the interests of his master. Like his colleague (v. 17), he instantly grasped his responsibility to be a dependable trustee.

Why does Jesus relate that these first two administrators doubled their capital? merely to embellish the story, and not, rather, to indicate something of the time involved? How much time would ordinarily be required for a wise investor to DOUBLE his capital on the market of first-century Palestine? If this passage of time is significant, it implies once more the delay between the Lord's departure and His return. (Cf. Matthew 25:19.)

Matthew 25:17 In like manner he also that received the two gained other two. In like manner: what is predicable of the former servant is also true of this one. The two-talent steward is no less successful than the fellow servant, even though the quantity handled and gained is less than half the other's amount. People with even less gifts than others can yet prove themselves equally faithful and diligent in multiplying the value of what Jesus entrusts to them.

This two-talent steward is not mere scenery in Jesus-' story, because this man could feel the power of temptations to which, in relation to the other two, he would be susceptible:

1.

Because he possessed less than the five-talent man, he could have felt deficient and incapable, and tempted to conceal his abilities.

2.

Because he possessed more than the one-talent man, he could have judged himself one notch better than his inferior, falling into unjustified pride.

So, standing between the others, he represents both men's temptations to be arrogant or feel inferior to anyone with gifts more or less than their fellows. But the Lord who distributes these gifts has in mind that each simply utilize the abilities with which he personally has been gifted for his Master's glory.

A Man Too Lazy to Try

Matthew 25:18 But he that received the one went away and digged in the earth, and hid his lord's money. This unimaginative chap differs from the evil servant of Matthew 24:48 f., in that the latter was openly and actively wicked, whereas this one simply does nothing. Unlike the overconfident, foolish virgins who made at least some preparation for the wedding, this over-cautious, unenterprising administrator errs because of under confidence. He remains stolidly insensitive to his responsibility to gain a profit for his master. Ironically, he takes a greater risk of losing everything. This fellow is not a great waster, like the prodigal son (Luke 15:13) nor a great debtor, like the unforgiving servant (Matthew 18:23-35). He simply hides what belongs to his lord and refuses to put it to work.

He went away and digged in the earth. Back in the days of the uncertainties of banking and war in countries where banking was untrustworthy, the earth itself became the common safe deposit box of the uncertain, a fact evidenced by later, providential discoveries of casks of valuable coins (cf. Matthew 13:44). So, this lazy steward really risked losing his treasure to some fortunate finder who accidentally dug it up. Far more praiseworthy would have been to risk losing the talent through investment, for he would at least have attempted something positive for his lord who, not unlikely, was thoroughly versed in the uncertainties of markets and business. Nevertheless, with the last shovelful of dirt piled over the money, he considered his conscience silenced. Perhaps he even prided himself on being both honest and prudent, even quite scrupulous. He would return it to its owner, possessing the identical worth it had when he received it.

But it was his lord's money entrusted to him to invest, not his own to remove from circulation! This over-caution is not simply an excess of scruple. It is equivalent to a breach of trust. He refuses to be answerable to his master beyond the barest duty of returning the money intact.

Even before the final accounting, his true attitude is exposed. M. Dods (P.H.C., XXII, 575) applies this:

It is not without significance that the servant who did nothing at all for his master was he who had received but one talent. No doubt those who have great ability are liable to temptations of their own; they may be more ambitious, and may find it difficult to serve their Master with means which they see would bring in to themselves profits of a kind they covet. But such men, at all events, are not tempted to bury their talent. This is the peculiar temptation of the man who has little ability, and sullenly retires from a service in which he cannot shine and play a conspicuous part.

Ultimately, as always, there are really only two types of stewards in God's judgment: the trustworthy administrators who expend their best efforts to please their Master, and the irresponsible, undependable ones who, in the end, do nothing. (Cf. John 5:41-44; John 8:29.) And these latter He condemns in no uncertain terms!

The Turning Point

Matthew 25:19 Now after a long time the lord of those servants cometh, and maketh a reckoning with them. This period of a long time is the indefinite interval that tries the true motives and character of each steward. During this time the lazy steward could have repented and unearthed that one talent and hurried either to invest it or place it with the bankers for interest. The two faithful stewards could have grown careless and relaxed their efforts. Instead, they considered it simply an additional grace period to labor longer! This long time serves to underline the fairness of the judgment finally given, because the final account does not have to be in until all the servants shall have had suitable time to make their Lord a profit. This delay is itself mercy so that we might correct false starts, cover lost ground and serve profitably. After a long time combines with he went away into another country (Matthew 25:14) to imply that Jesus-' Second Coming and the final judgment pictured here will be delayed longer than people expected, and is parallel to other similar clues given earlier (Matthew 24:48; Matthew 25:5; cf. 2 Peter 3:4-13).

It is the lord of those servants who comes, a fact which emphasizes how completely the time, energies, talents and efforts of those slaves really belonged, not to themselves, but to their master (cf. 1 Corinthians 6:19 f.). Could such a master forget to demand an accounting for the wealth he had entrusted to his slaves? Here, then, is the final judgment, or reckoning, which we all must render our returning Lord. (Cf. Matthew 18:23 ff.; Matthew 21:33 ff.; Matthew 22:1 ff.; Luke 19:15.) That we too must answer is as certain as the wealth of privileges and material riches that pass through our hands.

Matthew 25:20 And he that received the five talents came and brought other five talents, saying, Lord, thou deliveredst unto me five talents: lo I have gained other five talents. You delivered to me: without this magnanimous trust, the slave could have done nothing (John 15:5; Luke 19:16). How gracious the privilege to be allowed to do anything for Jesus Christ! Considering our real worth, that He should trust us with such priceless treasures brings us inexpressible joy over this unjustified privilege (2 Corinthians 4:7; Colossians 2:2 b, Colossians 2:3)! And to think that, in some minor way, we can contribute to HIS glory, mightily empowered to do so by His Spirit, and then, at last, to be certain that even the most insignificant service done for Him shall be recognized,is not all this the very definition of grace?!

Lo, means Look here, notice, as if the happy steward enthusiastically welcomed his lord to see the money for himself. Though all we do and are is by the Lord's grace (Acts 17:24-28; 1 Corinthians 15:10), it is also correct to say, I have gained, because our personal commitment and efforts to express our loyalty and love to Him do count (1 Corinthians 15:58). No wonder there is joyous excitement and unshaken confidence in our final reckoning before our Lord! (Cf. 1 Thessalonians 2:19; Philippians 2:16; Philippians 4:1; 2 Corinthians 1:14 all speak of Paul's joy at Christ's coming, due to his converts-' faith. Our confidence before the Lord: Ephesians 3:12; Hebrews 10:19; Hebrews 4:16; Hebrews 9:28; 1 Peter 4:13; 1 John 2:28; 1 John 3:21; Jude 1:24.)

Rewards Beyond All Deserving

Matthew 25:21 His lord said unto him, Well done, good and faithful servant. Here is the true spirit and character of this master, that gives the lie to the negligent servant's attitude. M. Dods (P.H.C. XXII, 575) scores that ingrate thus:

(His view of God) is unpardonly wrong, and the Very heartiness with which these other servants were greeted refutes it. You hear the hearty Well done! ringing through the whole palacethere is no hesitating scrutiny, no reminding them they had, after all, merely done what it was their duty to do. Not at allit is the genial, generous outburst of a man who likes to praise, and hates to find people at fault.

Good and faithful servant: what a glorious title! What splendid rewards are attached to it! What joys await its wearer! He proved good by his dedication to the task assigned him, and faithful (pistòs) by being reliable or trustworthy. He was not entitled good and successful servant, but good and FAITHFUL. Praise for this highly successful manager is not based on the amount of his gain, but on the quality of dedicated service he expended, as shown by what follows.

Thou hast been faithful over a few things. I will set thee over many things. How very little capital he had actually handled for his master: a mere five talents in contrast to his lord's incalculable wealth and even to his own future responsibilities! (See Special Study: The Reasonableness of the Redeemer's Rewards for Righteousness, my Vol. I, 198ff.). He gives beyond all dreams and deserving! His lowliest servant's final pleasure is double because duty to such a Master is already an inexpressibly gratifying favor. So, if the wealth of gifts He entrusts to us in this life is, in His estimate, but a few things, what immeasurably greater treasure must constitute the many things over which He would set us later!

I will set thee over many things. Whatever the joy of thy lord entailed, his reward was not an extended vacation, but nobler employment. I will set you over means you shall rule over or be responsible for. While there is more work to do, it is to be an employment that involves reigning. Rather than be discharged from investment service, these stewards are advanced to bigger things. To the men who had demonstrated themselves eager and dependable at a lower level of responsibility, their master intends to give prolonged opportunities for even greater service (cf. Matthew 24:47).

Enter thou into the joy of thy lord. What is this joy in which they would share?

1.

A feast to celebrate the master's return, perhaps accompanied by manumission of the slave on the basis of his outstanding fidelity and industriousness? (Trench, Parables, 94; cf. John 15:15; Luke 12:37; Revelation 3:20). To share in such a banquet with his lord would be partial reward for his exceptional service.

2.

The master's pleasure upon his newly acquired, even greater wealth?

3.

The master's personal sense of joy over his servants-' accomplishments?

4.

Or is it the joy of lordship. admission to fellowship in possession, partnership? (Bruce, Expositor's Greek Testament, 303; cf. Hebrews 3:14).

All of these could be true of Jesus. This hearty welcome says to the wise and faithful steward: I want you to share in the happiness I enjoy! (cf. Hebrews 12:2; Isaiah 53:11). Servants who have their Master's true interests at heart can participate whole-heartedly in what pleases Him. They can work for Him forever, because they share His program and are satisfied with achieving His goals. Their heart is in their (= His) work. No wonder then, that unlimited progress lies ahead for Christ's disciples who take seriously their goal to be perfect as our heavenly Father is perfect (Matthew 5:48).

Nor is it any surprise, too, that Jesus teaches us to believe that the world cannot grant us honors or praise equal to His. Only He can commend and reward. Long before judgment He established this final commendation, so we would seek to please Him and thus keep ourselves loyal to Him, longing to hear from Him, Well done, good and faithful servant. (Study John 5:44; John 12:26; John 12:42 f.; 2 Corinthians 10:12; 2 Corinthians 10:18.)

Matthew 25:22 And he also that received the two talents came,. 23 His lord said unto him,. He who received less gifts, a narrower position and more limited opportunities in life is commended in the same way as the one whose gifts outnumbered his. So, it is not the quantity of talents or the disadvantages of our social position or degree of education that determines our Lord's attitude toward us, but our sense of responsibility to Him, demonstrated by our diligent use of what He has entrusted to us.

Self-righteous Dismissal of Duty

Matthew 25:24 And he also that had received the one talent came and said, Lord, I knew thee that thou art a hard man, reaping where thou didst not sow, and gathering where thou didst not scatter. After the enthusiastic expressions of graciousness on the part of the returned master, it must have taken no little courage for his little ingrate to accuse him of a grasping, tight-fisted attitude. But this trapped, badly-motivated hypocrite must make a flimsy self-defense of some kind. So he attempts to shift all the blame onto his lord for his own failure.

I knew thee, he says? How little he knew him! Thou art a hard man. Nothing would have been farther from the truth, had this servant but sought to promote his master's good, a hypothesis confirmed by the lord's expansive reaction to the others who did. With poetic justice, this servant's accusation will be fulfilled in his own case, because, ironically, he pushed his lord to be harsh with him, a tactic which succeeded only in slamming the door of mercy in his own face. But it was his own indifference to duty that created in his mind this image of his lord as a hard man who makes unreasonable demands and expects back more than he gives. He hoped to establish his case by two parallel illustrations: reaping where thou didst not sow, and gathering (winnowed grain) where thou didst not scatter (sheaves to be threshed). Others sow and YOU reap! Others scatter unthreshed grain on the threshing floor and then thresh it, and YOU take the wheat, the fruit of their labors! He implies that there was no real motivation to labor, because any potential return from any investment, be it market or bank investment, would have fallen to his master, hence he would have gotten nothing for his pains. What hope of personal gain was there to motivate anyone to take investment risks for such a crusty, ill-tempered old man?

This steward's reaction is probably not intentionally insolent (Proverbs 26:16). Not unlikely, he supposes that, under the circumstances, his approach is just, his words sincere and appropriate. His blindness to his own misconduct stems from a totally wrong view of his lord. He did not love his master, so he willfully misunderstood him, and in this alienation of sympathy, refused to serve him. By attempting to protect his own interests, he asserted his fundamental intention to work for himself.

His grave error is that of all sinners. Men justify their sin on the basis of a firmly believed but false view of God's character. They accuse Him of demanding what they suppose belongs to them. They assume that all the time, energy, talents and cash that flow through their lives really belongs to them, and that God's expectation that He be given His portion thereof is but an unreasonable, self-calculating money policy on His part! Ironically, there is just a grain of truth in the slave's words. All our work, our lives, our talents, our very being must be utilized to the glory of God alone. Nothing we handle is really ours. It would appear that He alone is enriched by our efforts. This is but half of the truth, hence more treacherously deceptive. In His story Jesus faces this accusation head-on, shouting for all to hear that.

1.

God's gifts are proportionately bestowed according to our ability. He is so kind and understanding that He would never overload anyone with more than he can bear.

2.

Our service is only preparation for yet greater things to come FOR US.

3.

Our rewards are rich and desirable beyond all we could ever hope to deserve.

So, any rebellion against such a Master as Jesus arises from our real ignorance of God. No harsh, demanding Boss, He considers the smallest favor to insignificant people as done directly to Himself (Matthew 25:40)! He watches for the chance to help the weakest servants and accepts the will for the deed, loves to praise, encourage and uplift. It is only a gross and deliberate misrepresentation of His Kingdom that could ever suppose that what is given to Him or done for Him could ever be lost or forgotten or go unrewarded (1 Corinthians 15:58).

Matthew 25:25 and I was afraid, and went away and hid thy talent in the earth: lo thou hast thine own. I was afraid, he says. Really? He did not hesitate to insult his master to his face or return him the money without making even the smallest attempt to bring him a profit. The man feared making mistakes, so he did nothing, which was the greatest mistake of all. He implies, Driven to it by your harsh, unreasoning character and compelled by what would happen, if I lost your money through bad investment, I hid your talent in the earth.

How does God consider the one-talent man? This slave had the lightest responsibility of the three, but it was still no more than he could easily manage. Jesus rivets our attention on the man with the most limited potentiality and the least of his master's goods, because, in comparison to the highly gifted, more influential brethren in the limelight in the Church, we easily think ourselves handicapped and hampered with little means at our disposal to do anything for God. It is precisely because of this that we feel severely tempted to hide our light under a bushel, bury our talent in inactivity and then criticize God for not being more generous. We too are tempted to create the same hypothesis contrary to fact, Had God given me more money, talents, intellect, etc., I would have produced more, when, as a matter of fact, we are not using what we have.
As this improductive steward handed the solitary talent back to its owner, he concludes with an unconscious falsehood: Lo thou hast thine own. This is deceiving, because no account is given of his own time and activity, both of which were as much the possession of his master as the talent. He was a slave (doûlos, Matthew 25:26), so he himself belonged to his lord, but did not, in reality, return to his master what was his. Although he had not squandered or absconded with his master's money, he cannot possibly escape blame, because his abilities, healthy body, time and energies were never used any more than the buried talent, but were all fruitless, as far as the master was concerned. Rather than confess any wrong, he boldly implies that his lord should praise him for his prudence and exonerate him from any blame for returning the money intact. Such is the depth of his self-deception, and the justification for his condemnation that comes next.

The Premises of His Defeat

Matthew 25:26 But 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 did not scatter; Feel the contrast that marks the good and faithful from the wicked and slothful. Whereas this steward defended himself as prudent, because he apparently took no risks, his master now attacks his inoperosity precisely because he had done nothing at all.

1.

He was wicked (poneré; Bruce, Expositor's Greek Testament, 303 prefers mean-spirited or grudging) toward so generous a master. Why?

a.

Because he slandered his master first to himself, then to the lord himself.

b.

Because he had not done his duty as slave required to invest his master's money.

c.

Because his unwillingness to work was motivated by his disdain for his master's concerns, prosperity and clearly expressed demands before he left.

2.

He was slothful (oknçrè, lazy, slow, indolent, idle). The master's proof of this accusation comes in Matthew 25:27.

Thou knewest? This is not unlikely a question to draw out what the slave could have known, hence could have produced. His master waives his own right to expect the energies of his slave to be utilized for his profit, and simply defeats the sluggard by his own arguments. You knew? Then you will be judged by your own standards expressed in your own words! This lord is not for one minute conceding the slave's judgment as true in reality, but conceding it for sake of argument. If the servant's argument means that the master enriched himself by the labor of others, then he could have known that the lord would demand a profit from this servant's own labors. This alone should have made him more afraid NOT to invest that money in the surest kind of investment then known.

The Proper Conclusion From Such Premises

Matthew 25:27 Thou oughtest therefore to have put my money to the bankers and at my coming I should have received back mine own with interest. Were the slave troubled by other forms of risk through speculative investments, surely he should have been comforted by the guarantees afforded by the bankers. Although it was illegal to charge interest on money lent to fellow Hebrews (Exodus 22:25; Leviticus 25:36 f.; Psalms 15:5), interest could be charged to non-Hebrews (Deuteronomy 23:19 f.). Such a low-risk investment could have commanded high interest in those days and turned a reasonably handsome profit. But how apply this option in Christian practice?

1.

Hendriksen (Matthew, 883) notes Jesus-' utilization of this argument in the master's rebuttal:

In passing, a safe inference would seem to be that Jesus, who tells this parable, is not opposed to responsible capitalism. Profit prompts employment and makes possible helping those in need, etc.

2.

Those who discover little direct use for their talents in Christ's service may well put what they do possess at the disposition of others to be invested profitably. Do they have enough talent to earn income? There is no shortage of missionary enterprises, charitable organizations and Christian education programs to which those with smaller gifts may dedicate their contributions. While this seems not to be a direct investment of life and talents, the efforts of the front-line Christian bankers brings profit to Jesus and those disciples who invest for His glory in this way shall be suitably recognized.

3.

Why should our Lord, represented by the master in His illustration, be so driven by the profit motive? I should have received back mine own with interest, is the word of God's Son. In Himself, therefore, He furnishes the example of the spirit that must drive His disciples: get in there and make a profit, improve your opportunities, buy up the market, know how to seize the advantage. (Cf. Ephesians 5:16, esp. in Greek: buying up the opportunity; Luke 16:8 f.) How many Christians actually believe that their one goal in life is to turn every energy and talent into a way of making positive gain for Jesus Christ? To fail to grasp this is to contribute to the sluggishness and lack of progress of His Kingdom on earth. You should have put my money to the bankers means You did not. Idleness, laziness and irresponsibility for others and their goods is soundly condemned in Scripture (2 Thessalonians 3:6-13; Hebrews 6:11 f.; 1 Thessalonians 5:14; 1 Thessalonians 4:11; Proverbs 6:6-11; Proverbs 10:4 f. Proverbs 13:4; Proverbs 18:9; Proverbs 19:15; Proverbs 20:4; Proverbs 20:13; Proverbs 21:25; Proverbs 22:13; Proverbs 24:30-34; Proverbs 26:14-16; Proverbs 27:18; Proverbs 28:19). Will a Christian rob his Lord? Yet, by preventing Him from receiving what is His right to expect and what He otherwise would have obtained, he cheats Him, even though the Christian returns his talent back to God in mint condition.

The Lazy Are Dispossessed and Punished

Matthew 25:28 Take ye away therefore the talent from him, and give it to him that hath the ten talents. This order proves that the master had not touched, much less accepted, the one talent from his indolent steward. As it lay there burning the useless servant's hand, it reminded him how many opportunities had been wasted while the money was in his hands. Whereas he expected the master to take the solitary talent back, incredibly, the lord rejected it.

As another stepped forward to relieve him of that unwanted talent, the limited stewardship of the inactive servant ended. There is now no further time nor opportunity to make good, exactly as, for the five foolish virgins, the coming of the bridegroom ended all opportunity for them.
Why give it unto him that hath the ten talents (cf. Luke 19:25)? Several reasons are suggested:

1.

Indifference to one's stewardship finally makes others wealthy and empoverishes oneself (Proverbs 10:4 f; Proverbs 11:24 f; Proverbs 12:11; Proverbs 14:23; Proverbs 17:16; Proverbs 20:13; Proverbs 21:17; Proverbs 22:29; Proverbs 27:18).

2.

This owner may do what he will with his own possessions. God, too, is sovereign in precisely the same way. (See note on Matthew 20:15.)

3.

Who was better qualified to accept additional responsibility than he who had demonstrated himself most capable by profitably handling the most money and in whose hands the master's interests were safest?

A Universal Rule of Life

Matthew 25:29 For unto everyone that hath shall be given, and he shall have abundance: but from him that hath not, even that which he hath shall be taken away. (Cf. Luke 19:26.) This rule of life in God's Kingdom is often illustrated in human psychology (Matthew 13:12; esp. Mark 4:24 f.). What is it that one has or has not? And how could anyone, who possesses nothing, be stripped of it? In our story all three slaves possessed two fundamental assets: their servanthood and their lord's talents to invest. The two slothful stewards grasped the preciousness of both, increased their lord's wealth and insured the permanency of their position. The lazy slave has now been stripped of his one talent, and thus, has not. He is now to be deprived of the last precious possession, his privilege to serve this generous lord. He had treated his stewardship as if he did not have it. Now what he really possessed all along shall be taken away.

This principle is one of life's moral laws, especially with regard to opportunities for service and abilities. To the man who had proven that he had the trustworthiness and ability to handle large sums of money, more could be entrusted. The more he was given, the more he could earn with it, the more he could be rewarded for his work, and the more he shall have abundance. Each trial of trust proves whether each of us is ready to move on to higher responsibilities. Those who know how to take advantage of their spiritual opportunities will be given others. But those who make no good use of theirs, however small or insignificant they may seem to them, will even lose their chance to do anything. (Consider Luke 16:10-12.)

How God Sees Uselessness

Matthew 25:30 And cast ye out the unprofitable servant into the outer darkness: there shall be the weeping and the gnashing of teeth. Unprofitable not only describes the crime of this servant, but also establishes the point of Jesus-' illustration.

The slave's failure lay in what he could, but would not, do. His was voluntary inertia. He lacked, but did not want to develop, creativity, initiative, foresight, alertness, aggressiveness, dependability or responsibility. So, why should anyone want to keep such a useless slave any longer?

Cast out. outer darkness ... weeping ... gnashing of teeth. These combined expressions repeat a well-known paraphrase for hell. (Cf. notes on Matthew 8:12; Matthew 13:42; Matthew 13:40; Matthew 22:13; Matthew 24:51; see also Luke 13:28; 2 Peter 2:17; Jude 1:13.) In what other ways in this discourse has Jesus underscored the destiny of the wicked already (Matthew 24:39; Matthew 24:43; Matthew 24:51; Matthew 25:12; cf. Matthew 25:41; Matthew 25:46)? These expressions picture a banishment to a futile self-accusation and frustrated anger. This punishment accents the severity of the sentence Jesus pronounced upon refusal to be stewards. (Cf. Matthew 21:33-41; Luke 12:45-48.) No great sinner by most standards, this offender is rejected for unfaithfulness to his trust by simply doing nothing. There is no need to break down the broad class of unconscientious stewards to show all the various degrees of failure. After all, if our Lord so severely punishes the unprofitable use of ONE talent, what would He do to those who squander or fail to invest MORE?

This parable compares with that of the Pounds and complements it. The message of the Pounds Parable is that people given identical gifts may produce quite dissimilar results and be quite differently rewarded in strictly graduated ratio to the differing diligence. The point of the Talents Parable is that people who have unequal gifts may still utilize them equally well or badly and be rewarded in proportion to their work.

FACT QUESTIONS

1.

Tell all the differences between the Parable of the Talents and the Parable of the Pounds (Luke 19). Show how the occasions on which each was told differed from each other.

2.

Why are some given more talents than others? What rule did the master follow to distribute his money to each slave?

3.

Of what phase of God's program is the Parable of the Talents illustrative? List the points of comparison.

4.

What is a talent as this word was used in Jesus-' story? What is its relative value? How may this value be calculated?

5.

List the results obtained by the first two stewards.

6.

Describe the attitude and actions of the third steward.

7.

List the points in this parable that have parallels in other stories Jesus told on the same day.

8.

Explain in what sense the stewards-' master termed them good and faithful servants. On what basis could he determine this?

9.

Indicate the rewards of the good and faithful servants.

10.

Explain what it means for the profitable servants to enter into the joy of their lord.

11.

What was the third steward's opinion of his master? Wherein was he mistaken?

12.

How did the lord think his steward should have acted, given his present opinion?

13.

To whom did the master give the lazy steward's talent? Why to him?

14.

Explain how a person who has nothing can still lose what he has. What did the lazy steward have and what did he have not?

15.

Explain the terms (a) outer darkness, and (b) weeping and gnashing of teeth.

16.

State the central point of Jesus-' story in one, well-honed statement.

17.

What does this parable teach about the Second Coming of Jesus?