The Parable of the Talents/Minas

  • Thread starter Thread starter Redratfish
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
R

Redratfish

Guest
So while reading the two parables, I come across a part that bothers me. In both parables Matthew 25:14-30 and Luke 19:11-27 when explaining his actions, the “lazy” servant says “I know you reap where you do not sow, and gathering where you did not scatter seed.” and the Master confirms that the servant is right, but should have put it in a bank so the Master would have gotten more money back. If this is a parable about God as the Master, and how we must “prove ourselves in the little things to deserve the bigger things” as so many explanations say, then how is it moral to serve and aid someone who is essentially stealing, by reaping where he did no sow. Someone reaped there, and it is not the Master. Can someone help clarify this parable for me? I realize the talents can represent the gifts we are given in life and we must use them to the best of our ability. But the explanations I see I feel leave out that line that makes the Master look at least unethical, and I feel it completely changes the meaning.
 
Redratfish said:
So while reading the two parables, I come across a part that bothers me. In both parables Matthew 25:14-30 and Luke 19:11-27 when explaining his actions, the “lazy” servant says “I know you reap where you do not sow, and gathering where you did not scatter seed.” and the Master confirms that the servant is right, but should have put it in a bank so the Master would have gotten more money back. If this is a parable about God as the Master, and how we must “prove ourselves in the little things to deserve the bigger things” as so many explanations say, then how is it moral to serve and aid someone who is essentially stealing, by reaping where he did no sow. Someone reaped there, and it is not the Master. Can someone help clarify this parable for me? I realize the talents can represent the gifts we are given in life and we must use them to the best of our ability. But the explanations I see I feel leave out that line that makes the Master look at least unethical, and I feel it completely changes the meaning.
Click to expand...
God is the Creator of the Universe from nothing! He has sown everything! He *created *the seeds!

Yes, the Bible is true, but there are some places where the Bible quotes someone, and that person (or snake) was lying. Why do you think the man given 1talent was called evil? Because he made an excuse for having simply buried the talent, and the excuse was a *lie. *
 
The point of the parable is, “what did each servant do with the talent/money that was given?”. It is not a story of the ethics/morality of the master so I am not sure it matters whether the master was good or bad. It may be an issue if you try and equate the master with God…however I am not sure that that was an intent of the parable…

That the servant received the talent/money and then just stored it in the back and did not use it for anything else was the main message of the story.
The parable was not telling you to serve someone who steals or is a bad mater. This was just the story of someone who served a bad master.
 
Every gift of God is intended to spread and increase His Kingdom in some manner or another. I think the parable means that if God reaps even where the gospel hasn’t been spread, say with the Good Samaritans of the world, then how much more will He expect a bounty where it has been spread, where His word and grace have been abundantly “sown”. Reference Luke 12:48 for a similar principle:
**
“But the one who does not know and does things deserving punishment will be beaten with few blows. From everyone who has been given much, much will be demanded; and from the one who has been entrusted with much, much more will be asked.”
**
 
Redratfish said:
So while reading the two parables, I come across a part that bothers me. In both parables Matthew 25:14-30 and Luke 19:11-27 when explaining his actions, the “lazy” servant says “I know you reap where you do not sow, and gathering where you did not scatter seed.” and the Master confirms that the servant is right, but should have put it in a bank so the Master would have gotten more money back. If this is a parable about God as the Master, and how we must “prove ourselves in the little things to deserve the bigger things” as so many explanations say, then how is it moral to serve and aid someone who is essentially stealing, by reaping where he did no sow. Someone reaped there, and it is not the Master. Can someone help clarify this parable for me? I realize the talents can represent the gifts we are given in life and we must use them to the best of our ability. But the explanations I see I feel leave out that line that makes the Master look at least unethical, and I feel it completely changes the meaning.
Click to expand...
It means the he has people under him who are working. And he reaps what they sow. So he did no sow but those under him did.

May God’s face shine on you.
 
Redratfish,
Thank you for this post. This parable has bothered me in the past and one reason is the one you point out. I don’t particularly buy that there is one point to the parable or any other for that matter. The holy spirit may be speaking to you and helping you to deepen your practice of Catholicism by gently urging you to think outside the box. Blessings to you and yours-take care.
 
fred_conty said:
It means the he has people under him who are working. And he reaps what they sow. So he did no sow but those under him did.

May God’s face shine on you.
Click to expand...
Whoa, wait–the man with one talent was a communist?!?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top