Parables 101

Yes, admin advised to post it here. I find the differing perspectives fascinating. The parables are by definition supposed to offer a moral or religious lesson. I hadn't heard this one before and neither had I heard the one you presented. I will google it and get back to you.--------------------------------------------------------------------------------quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Matthew 25:14-30 (King James Version)
For the kingdom of heaven is as a man travelling into a far country, who called his own servants, and delivered unto them his goods.And unto one he gave five talents, to another two, and to another one; to every man according to his several ability; and straightway took his journey.Then he that had received the five talents went and traded with the same, and made them other five talents.And likewise he that had received two, he also gained other two.But he that had received one went and digged in the earth, and hid his lord's money.After a long time the lord of those servants cometh, and reckoneth with them.And so he that had received five talents came and brought other five talents, saying, Lord, thou deliveredst unto me five talents: behold, I have gained beside them five talents more.His lord said unto him, Well done, thou good and faithful servant: thou hast been faithful over a few things, I will make thee ruler over many things: enter thou into the joy of thy lord.He also that had received two talents came and said, Lord, thou deliveredst unto me two talents: behold, I have gained two other talents beside them.His lord said unto him, Well done, good and faithful servant; thou hast been faithful over a few things, I will make thee ruler over many things: enter thou into the joy of thy lord.Then he which had received the one talent came and said, Lord, I knew thee that thou art an hard man, reaping where thou hast not sown, and gathering where thou hast not strawed:And I was afraid, and went and hid thy talent in the earth: lo, there thou hast that is thine.His lord answered and said unto him, Thou wicked and slothful servant, thou knewest that I reap where I sowed not, and gather where I have not strawed:Thou oughtest therefore to have put my money to the exchangers, and then at my coming I should have received mine own with usury.Take therefore the talent from him, and give it unto him which hath ten talents.For unto every one that hath shall be given, and he shall have abundance: but from him that hath not shall be taken away even that which he hath.And cast ye the unprofitable servant into outer darkness: there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth.--------------------------------------------------------------------------------On face value I would say the moral lesson is to cultivate moral obligation to those entrusted to your care unlike the master in the parable.Does anyone perceive it differently?

I realise your views may have changed since posting this but are they still concerned with money? I feel we normally relate to these parables according to our own experiences and I don't relate to any of the characters or the situation.But what I see is that some workers were satisfied with their pay until they saw others getting a better deal. They complained of the others being equal (in pay) to them.I don't think the parable reflects god's or Jesus' morals but reflects ours. It reflects who we are being, not what we are doing.I believe the inner self or who we are being is what Jesus refers to as 'the kingdom of heaven'. Whoever or whatever you relate to in the parables is a reflection of you, or me.

I know many believers substitute god for the master and humans as the servants but I don't see any possible reason to connect god with that of master or landowner in any of the parables.When god isn't substituted for the master, it changes the meaning.Also if Jesus meant god, why wouldn't he say "god?" He does on numerous other occasions.

Thanks for your responses, Jar. Maybe the parables are intended to mean different things to different people, especially as Jesus did not give an explanation. Although, many of the interpretations don't consider the author and where he was coming from.
As far as I know, Jesus was always advocating on behalf of the weak, vulnerable and innocent. Why would he not do the same with the parables?
Didn't he say, the meek shall inherit the earth? He didn't mean those pretending to be meek, I'm sure. In the parables, the meek are not heard but they are there. regards

I think that's obvious. Why?

This is good stuff. The parable worked insofar as it evoked an expression of self. The parable makes no mention of repentance and doesn't Jesus warn that we cannot know when the 'eleventh hour' will come?

Being meek is being more helpless than you. Didn't Jesus teach, 'what you do to the least of my brethren, you do to me'? Most interpretations are in conflict with this. It doesn't make sense to change the narrators character to suit your own. Jesus was genuine and sincere.The parables are not aimed at the 'inadequate' to pull their socks up. Jesus was far more understanding, loving and caring. Jesus shows meekness in various forms throughout the parables. There are innocents, vulnerables and the helpless. I believe everyone does what they can to survive in the only way they know how, right or wrong. I think Jesus clearly demonstrates this in his parables. He makes the point(s) of how we live our lives and what we do to survive. But he tells us there is nothing we have to do to survive. God will provide. We just have choices, which include who we are being as well as what we are doing.

Don't you see the servant with one talent as the least of these? and submissive Talent in the parable represents money and the servants in each case did their best according to their abilities.
Didn't the master admit that he does not do his best by reaping what he has not sown? Is that the lesson Jesus would have us learn? Was the master taking more than he needed to survive and leaving the least of his servants with nothing? Edited by pelican, : No reason given.

All three were servants but the one with one talent was the least of them in every way. He was afraid. He didn't know how to increase his masters' abundance. He wasn't smart enough to please his master.
We don't know how the other two increased their talents. It could have been by fair or by foul means. What did Jesus mean by talent in the context of the parable? Could any of these alternatives be buried in the ground? Was the master doing his best?

Obviously not to me but neither is what seems obvious to me, obvious to you. regards

I understand you are coming from the boss's perspective who sets the rules but aren't we all equal under god?The servant with the one talent was the only one who offered an explanation of his performance. The others didn't need to explain as the end justifies the means.Is it a moral right to reap what you did not sow? This is probaly how the other two servants rendered a profit too. How could this master represent jesus' moral obligation or god's for that matter?

I don't get this from it, though he may have been trying to please his boss, it doesn't actually say so. What it does say is that the servant was afraid of his boss. This seems to be acceptable in many of the interpretations. I realise it's probably normal but I've never been afraid of my bosses. I don't think Jesus would have found it acceptable. I think the servant was right about his master's character, in being afraid of his master. He was proved right by his masters' actions. Yes, there are many lessons if we wish to learn.
I believe that the parable stands true today in the same dynamic way of how we live our lives in order to survive. This isn't equality under god in any shape or form .

Do you agree with the master's actions of taking what does not belong to him? It contains punishment and reward but did jesus mean to teach us how to get rewards or be punished? It doesn't sound like Jesus to me.

Exactly. Now it depends on how we (or god) judge our behaviour and whose behaviour we (or god) are judgeing. In the case of the parable of the talents, much more is known about the master and the servant with one talent than the other two.What does it say in total about the masters' behaviour and what in total does it say about the servant?The master's opinion of the servant differed to the explanation he had given, but the master agreed with the servants opinion of him. He admitted to taking what did not belong to him. Reaping what others had sown. Is this behaviour acceptable in jesus' eyes or the servant's?

yes I agreed that they contain punishment and reward but is that what Jesus was teaching?
In god's kingdom the master does not have precedent over the servant. Only the behaviour is judged.