PARABLE OF THE TALENTS (MATTHEW 25:14-30; LUKE 19:11-27)

 Snodgrass states, “Many people do not like these parables” found in Matthew and Luke. There are 

many differences between these two accounts so that most commentators doubt they are parallel 

teachings. Here are some distinctives of the two parables:

 

Matthew: The action takes place right before Passover; the master returns “after a long time” (v. 19) as 

a possible warning that Jesus' Second Coming may be delayed; “enter into the joy of your master” is in 

vv. 21, 23); and v. 30 has a casting into outer darkness.

 

Luke: It takes place around Palm Sunday; the servants are given an order to “do business” (v. 13) to 

make it clear that they are not just given the money for safe-keeping. Luke's version, which begins and 

ends with references to Jerusalem, and thus fits in well with the context of a story told right before 

Palm Sunday when Jesus' followers fully expected him to proclaim himself as king in Jerusalem and 

set up an earthly kingdom. 

 

There are also hints of the destruction of Jerusalem by the Romans within a few decades. In 

this manner, Jesus may have combined two types of judgment into the parable, just as he intertwined 

answers to the disciples' two questions regarding the destruction of the temple and the Second Coming.

Both of these versions also differ in the number of servants, how much money each one is given, and 

what their relative rewards are.

But the main difference is that in Luke's version, woven into the basic parable is a related allegorical 

parable. It involves a nobleman who goes to claim a throne but is rejected by the inhabitants. In 

response, he kills all those people. This clearly refers to Jesus' coming ascension to the Father where he 

will be recognized as king over all. But he will eventually return to earth in judgment.

As all commentators point out, this embedded parable has strong overtones of an event which 

happened about 30 years previously. In 4 BC, Archelaus, son of Herod the Great, went to Rome upon 

his father's death in order to get confirmation that he would now become king over all of Palestine. But 

a delegation of 50 Jews and Samaritans also went to Rome to protest the appointment. As a result, 

Archelaus did not get his expected kingship and became the ruler over a smaller territory than he had 

expected. In retribution, Archelaus removed the high priest from his post due to his part in the protest 

and became a notoriously harsh ruler over both the Jews and Samaritans.

For convenience sake, we will now only follow the story in Matthew's version, which is the longest 

parable that he reports in his gospel. In many ways it is similar to the immediately preceding parable of 

the ten bridesmaids, but unlike the previous parable, this one teaches that one must not only be alert but 

also active until Christ returns. (Kistemaker)  The slave in Matthew 24:45 was faith and prudent. The 

wise bridesmaids demonstrated prudence and the parable of the talents illustrated faithfulness. The 

foolish virgins thought the task was easier than it really was, and the unfaithful servant thought it was 

too hard. (Blomberg)

Interpretations include:

In an  explanation, the first servant = the conversion of the Jews; the second servant = the conversion 

of the Gentiles; and the third servant = the unconverted. Alternatively, it is the teachers of those various 

groups who are intended.

 

A popular approach among some preachers is to to stress stewardship and the idea that reward is only 

gained by hard work.

 

The most obvious interpretation is that the parable represents the time between the first and second 

comings of Christ and is directed to the disciples to encourage kingdom living.

 

There are even some commentators who treat the master as a negative example of one who encourages 

wasteful living and exploitation of others. Thus. the third servant is the hero of the story for unmasking 

their sinfulness. (France)

 

Look at 2 Peter 3:3-4 for those who doubted the Second Coming. Full Preterists would be modern 

examples.

Application: “To accept the kingdom and its salvation is to accept a trust. It enlists one as an agent on 

behalf of the kingdom, and all those so enlisted will be rewarded or judged in terms of their 

faithfulness to their task.” “The fact of the delay of the parousia does not negate faith in the Second 

Coming, but it does raise the question of faithfulness.” (Snodgrass)

 

“Vigilance is not simply a matter of fervor, joy, or even faith – it entails active and responsible 

service....Each person has to decide in what his own personal responsibility or gift consists, and then 

act upon it.” (Hill)

Verse by verse

Verse 14 Fitzmyer notes that the whole process begins with a picture of grace, which implies that the 

reader should respond with appropriate obedience.

Verse 15 uses “talents,” which weighed 60-80 lb of silver and were worth about 15-years wages (at 

least $2,400 according to Blomberg).

Snodgrass notes that our current meaning of “talent” actually derives from this parable beginning in 

the fifteenth century AD. But a very important point is made by France: “The talents don't stand for 

individual abilities. Instead they are the opportunities we are each given by God based on those 

abilities.”

Verse 21 “Work is a small thing, a matter we can judge as having little importance. It belongs to the 

world of vanity and should not be taken too seriously. But we must do it, and even do it responsively.” 

(Ellul, Reason for Being)

Verse 23 The second servant is treated exactly as the first one, indicating that we won't be judged by 

our abilities and opportunities (Hendricksen), but with how well we used them. Notice that their 

reward included more responsibility. France asks, “Is it reading too much into the parable to envisage 

heaven as a state not of indolent pleasure but of active cooperation with the purpose of God as well as 

enjoyment of his favor?” The verses on authority given are paralleled in Revelation 2:26-27.

Verse 24 “hard” = harsh, cruel, merciless. “Such a view of God proliferated among ancient religions 

and unfortunately recurs far too often among Christians as well.” (Blomberg)  Luke uses a different 

Greek word here from which we get our word “austere.” It is perhaps more appropriate than the one 

used by Matthew and has the meaning of strict, exacting or severe.

Verses 24-25 Notice that the third slave is in effect blaming the master for what he himself didn't do. 

Bertrand Russell was once asked what would happen if he died and met God. He said, “I would ask 

him, why didn't you give me clearer proof of your existence?”

Verses 26-27 The master doesn't necessarily agree with the slave's assessment of himself; he merely 

says, if you thought that was my character, at least you could have invested in a bank. (Hendricksen)

NRSV starts out, “You knew, did you, that I...?” Bankers in this context probably referred to 

shopkeepers or money changers. It literally reads “on a (moneylender's) table.”

 

This is the only reference in the Gospels of loaning money out on interest. Goldingay concludes that it 

is not a positive reference since the master is “otherwise characterized as a fraud with exploitative 

business practices.” However, Kaiser notes that nothing prohibited Jews from lending money for 

commercial ventures or international trade. The rabbis circumvented the prohibition of lending at 

interest by defining it as overly high interest only. (Kistemaker)

Verse 30 What was the third servant's problem? Here the commentators vary considerably in their 

opinions:

    “He saw no point in trying to get a profit – If he succeeded the master would get the profit and if he 

failed he would be punished.” (Nixon)

    The third slave (who represents a foolish believer) is not lost eternally, but he has lost something 

(Ellison)

    The third servant hoped the master wouldn't return, so he could keep the money for himself, and that 

is why he didn't want it put in the bank under his master's name. He was eternally lost. (Barbieri)

    He felt slighted since he hadn't been given as much money as the others so he retaliated by refusing 

to invest it. He excused his behavior by blaming it all on the master's character faults. (Kistemaker)

    Laziness was his main fault. (Hill)

    Failure of commitment was the servant's problem. That in itself is a damning offense. The word for 

laziness means shrinking or hesitant. He was driven by fear. (Blomberg)

    He was motivated by “unjustified suspicion and laziness.” “Wickedness and laziness are allies.” The 

two words rhyme in the Greek. “The lazy fellow had dug a hole, little realizing that in a sense he was 

digging it for himself.” (Hendricksen)

    The third servant is guilty of the sin of omission. His attitude represents “a religion concerned only 

with not doing anything wrong.” (France)