# What are talents?



## JohnV (Jan 16, 2006)

In Matthew 25 Jesus tells us the parable of the talents. To one the man gave five talents, to another two, and to the third he gave one, each according to his ability. 

Usually we put some kind of monetary value on the talents, such as the likely sum of about a thousand dollars. And the fact that they traded with them, or buried them in the ground, tells us that they were some kind of currency. But it also seems that currency was not the focal point of Jesus' meaning. Talents seem more to represent abilities than currency. After all, Jesus tells the rich young ruler to sell all that he has, to give to the poor, and to follow Him. That wouldn't fit with this parable if Jesus meant that we needed to put our value on talents as currency rather than talents as abilities. The idea of this parable, as I've always taken it to mean, is to make the most of what has been given us, whether abilities, wealth, social standing, or whatever, putting the value of it in how we may serve with them in a stewardly way rather than be served by them or to squander them. 

But this is figurative language, and is open to various interpretations. Some take it to mean that a businessman's business is to make money, or a dealer's business is to deal. The social or cultural norms set the standards for that, not the Bible. A labourer's wage is set at the going rate, the market value, not by what's fair, or according to the value of the work or to the company. Get away with what you can; make the most of the situation to the best profit. That's being stewardly. ( I've actually run into guys that believe that, or at least overtly practice it. ) The point is, we can make of it what we want. 

I just can't believe that. I think that Jesus meant something more firm and specific than that. How is the symbol of the talents seen rightly, as opposed to used wrongly?


----------



## Puritanhead (Jan 16, 2006)

I actually heard a sermon on Parables not long ago... I've never been of reductionist mindset to tether the parable to strict financial implications, as stewardship has a much broder context.

*Anyway, I would be interested to know what major Reformed minds have said about it -- if anyone has their comments handy.*

I admit sometimes being perplexed at the severe admonition against the wicked and lazy servant, who buried his talent, and heard of going "to outer darkness." Stewardship's demands?


----------



## VirginiaHuguenot (Jan 16, 2006)

Matthew Henry has much to say on this passage that is profitable. I will highlight a portion of his comments and recommend that those who are interested seek to read his complete comments on Matthew 25.14-30.

On talents:



> We have here the parable of the talents committed to three servants; this implies that we are in a state of work and business, as the former implies that we are in a state of expectancy. That showed the necessity of habitual preparation, this of actual diligence in our present work and service. In that we were stirred up to do well for our own souls; in this to lay out ourselves for the glory of God and the good of others.
> 
> In this parable, 1. The Master is Christ, who is the absolute Owner and Proprietor of all persons and things, and in a special manner of his church; into his hands all things are delivered. 2. The servants are Christians, his own servants, so they are called; born in his house, bought with his money, devoted to his praise, and employed in his work. It is probable that ministers are specially intended here, who are more immediately attending on him, and sent by him. St. Paul often calls himself a servant of Jesus Christ. See 2 Tim 2:24.
> 
> ...



On the wicked servant:



> 2. The third did ill (Matt 25:18); He that had received one talent, went, and hid his lord's money. Though the parable represents but one in three unfaithful, yet in a history that answers this parable, we find the disproportion quite the other way, when ten lepers were cleansed, nine of ten hid the talent, and only one returned to give thanks, Luke 17:17-18. The unfaithful servant was he that had but one talent: doubtless there are many that have five talents, and bury them all; great abilities, great advantages, and yet do no good with them: but Christ would hint to us, (1.) That if he that had but one talent, be reckoned with thus for burying that one, much more will they be accounted offenders, that have more, that have many, and bury them. If he that was but of small capacity, was cast into utter darkness because he did not improve what he had as he might have done, of how much sorer punishment, suppose ye, shall he be thought worthy, that tramples underfoot the greatest advantages? (2.) That those who have least to do for God, frequently do least of what they have to do. Some make it an excuse for their laziness, that they have not the opportunities of serving God that others have; and because they have not wherewithal to do what they say they would, they will not do what we are sure they can, and so sit down and do nothing; it is really an aggravation of their sloth, that when they have but one talent to take care about, they neglect that one.
> 
> He digged in the earth, and hid the talent, for fear it should be stolen; he did not misspend or misemploy it, did not embezzle it or squander it away, but he hid it. Money is like manure (so my Lord Bacon used to say,) good for nothing in the heap, but it must be spread; yet it is an evil which we have often seen under the sun, treasure heaped together (James 5:3; Eccles 6:1-2), which does good to nobody; and so it is in spiritual gifts; many have them, and make no use of them for the end for which they were given them. Those that have estates, and do not lay them out in works of piety and charity; that have power and interest, and do not with it promote religion in the places where they live; ministers that have capacities and opportunities of doing good, but do not stir up the gift that is in them, are those slothful servants that seek their own things more than Christ's.
> 
> He hid his lord's money; had it been his own, he might have done as he pleased; but, whatever abilities and advantages we have, they are not our own, we are but stewards of them, and must give account to our Lord, whose goods they are. It was an aggravation of his slothfulness, that his fellowservants were busy and successful in trading, and their zeal should have provoked his. Are others active, and shall we be idle?



Matthew Poole's comments are also useful:



> Matt 25:14-15. There is much the same parable Luke 19:12, but the difference is so great in the narration, and the time, and circumstances, and scope seem so different, that the best expositors think it another, and spoken at another time, though there be much of this in that: I shall therefore leave the consideration of that in Luke, until I meet with it in him, (though some interpreters do think this the same with that,) and only consider this, as it is before us in this evangelist. By the kingdom of heaven, is doubtless here to be understood the economy of God's providence in his gospel dispensations. The man travelling into a far country, is Christ ascending up to heaven, who, when he ascended up on high gave gifts unto men, Eph 4:8. By the goods, which the man is said to have delivered to his servants, are to be understood the gifts which God giveth to men, being himself (as to his glorious presence, and his principal residence, which is in heaven, at a great distance from us) as a man in a far country; for I see no reason to restrain these gifts to such as flow from Christ as Mediator, but rather choose to interpret it generally of all the gifts of God, whether of providence or grace. Whereas it is said, Matt 25:15, that this man divided his goods to his servants unequally, to one five talents, to another two, to another one, to every man according to his several ability, it signifieth only God's unequal distribution of his gifts to the sons of men, according to his own good pleasure; which is true both concerning natural parts, as wit, understanding, judgment, memory, as concerning those which the heathens call good things of fortune, as riches, honours, and dignities; Christians call them the good things of Providence; under which notion also come all acquired habits, or endowments, such as learning, knowledge, moral habits, etc., which though acquired are yet gifts, because it is the same God who gives us power to get wealth, as Moses speaks, Deut 8:18, who also gives men power to get knowledge, and upon study and meditation to comprehend the natures and causes of things, and also to govern and bridle our appetites: or the gifts of more special providence, or distinguishing grace. I take all those powers given to men, by which they are enabled to do good, or to excel others, to come under the notion of the goods here mentioned, which God distributeth unequally according to his own good pleasure, and as seemeth best to his heavenly wisdom, for the government of the world, and the ordering of the affairs of his church; of all which God will have all account one day, and reward men according to the improvement, or no improvement, which they have made of them in their several stations.
> 
> Matt 25:16-18. This part in the parable only showeth the different use that men and women make of those gifts, whether of common providence or of grace, especially common grace, which the Lord bestowed on them. Some make a great use of them for the profit of their Master, for the end for which God entrusted them with them, to wit the glory of his holy name, and the salvation of their souls. Others make no use at all of them for those ends.
> 
> ...


----------



## Henry from Canada (Jan 16, 2006)

John said:

"The idea of this parable, as I've always taken it to mean, is to make the most of what has been given us, whether abilities, wealth, social standing, or whatever, putting the value of it in how we may serve with them in a stewardly way rather than be served by them or to squander them. "

John, you basically summed up my interpretation of this parable.

I never read anything more to this parable, but I may be somewhat of a simpleton.

I think the "lazy servant" in this parable is especially relevant today. I think everyone here knows at least one person that this parable applies to.

These people are generally born into "good" families. They are disinterested in school, work, advancement, Bible study, ministries, etc. They seem to be most interested in TV, recreational sports, entertainment, etc.

Some people call them underachievers. 

They themselves may say they suffer from low self-esteem, low confidence, etc. Like the lazy man in this parable, they often blame others for their lack of accomplishment.

I never read anything more to this parable, because I grew up with people that resembled the different workers.

But then again, maybe there is another aspect here that I am presently too shallow to understand.


----------



## JohnV (Jan 16, 2006)

Charles Dickens had his Ebenezer Scrooge as one who hid his talent, but repented of it. He was one who worked diligently with what he thought was his talent, and made many times more of it. And he judged those who squandered their substance on the "surpluss population", and heaped abuse on those who would pick his pocket. Was he one of those who hid his talent?

What about men like Michael Jordan? Then spend all their life perfecting a game, and are in great demand by the public hungry for that sort of thing. People are willing to pay exhorbitant prices for tickets to see them play their game; and owners are willing to pay unheard of wages to have them play for them. But is this just another way to hide one's talent in the ground? Its only a game. 

What I mean to say is that what may appear to us many times as the one who used his five talents to make five more may actually be the one who had one talent and hid it in the ground. Appearances! But if we apply real and lasting value judgments to them, then that changes it all. And which generation does not have such value judgments that err? 

How are we to apply such a parable? It calls us away from judging by worldly standards, but yet uses worldly standards as an example.


----------



## Henry from Canada (Jan 17, 2006)

I guess only God can judge our use of talents.

Perhaps Michael Jordan may have wasted his great talents if these talents did not help spread the gospel, help feed the poor, etc.

Perhaps Jackie Robinson "stewarded" his talents well by courageously and patiently withstanding racial prejudices. Maybe God fore-ordained that Jackie Robinson would oercome racial problems in baseball with great dignity.

Perhaps a young American male with a low IQ used his talents extremely well when he quit high school to support his family and later landed with the Allied troops on Normandy in 1944.

Perhaps another young American male with a high IQ wasted his talents by becoming a rich advertising executive. 

No doubt, the Pharisees thought they used their talents well.

I think we could have some real debates over how well certain people use their talents.

At the same time, I think that we could all agree that certain people appear to have wasted their talent and others have done quite well.

If a healthy male with an IQ of 120 spends his nights watching TV, then we would all suspect he has wasted his talent.

An interesting aside.

I know a man who appears to have come from a really good family, is smart, good looking, articulate, etc. 

Yet this man never got a good education, never raised a family, never got a responsible job, seldom volunteers, etc. 

This man, however, is a professing Christian. He figures that since he believes, he will be saved. He fears, however, that because he does so little, God may not "give him much of a reward."

Did this gentleman use his talents well?

In my eyes he did not, however, God knows his circumstances much better than me. Perhaps this person has profound challenges that I am unaware of.

If God determines that he did not use his talents well, then what?

Will he be condemned because the "lazy servant" does not really have "saving faith?"

This leads into the issue of "easy believism"; an issue that is very large in Canada and the U.S. I have pondered over this issue over the last few years.

John, I apologize if this response seems odd and oversimplistic.


----------

