Does the Parable of the Talents Prove That Jesus Loved Commerce?
In the comments to my blog post reconciling Austro-libertarianism with Christianity, “Austrian Banker” argued that Jesus didn’t condone the charging of interest. (AB’s point was that modern Austrian economists should find this awkward.)
In response, Matt J wrote:
As for Jesus’ teaching specifically, in Matthew 25, verses 14-30 are where Jesus gives his ‘Parable of the Talents’, likening the kingdom of God to a man who entrusted his servants with some of his property (talents). When he returns he finds servants who invested his property wisely and earned him more. One servant buried the talents he received in the ground, dug it up, and gave it to the master.
The master says: “‘You wicked and slothful servant! You knew that I reap where I have not sown and gather where I scattered no seed? Then you ought to have invested my money with the bankers, and at my coming I should have received what was my own with interest.” (v. 26, 27)
The servants who took what the master gave him and increased it were deemed “good and faithful”. The one who buried it in the ground, not so much as earning a bank’s interest rate, was deemed “wicked and slothful’. Jesus used this as a metaphor for the kingdom of God. Does that sound like Jesus was against interest?
I understand where Matt J is coming from, but I actually don’t think the Parable of the Talents proves that Jesus had no problem with the charging of interest, or that He was a capitalist (which I’ve seen right-wing Christians claim).
I’m not saying Jesus is opposed to the charging of interest; my point is merely that you can’t conclude one way or the other, from the above parable.
If you doubt this, try a different parable, from Matthew 18: 23-35:
23″Therefore, the kingdom of heaven is like a king who wanted to settle accounts with his servants. 24As he began the settlement, a man who owed him ten thousand talents[a] was brought to him. 25Since he was not able to pay, the master ordered that he and his wife and his children and all that he had be sold to repay the debt.
26″The servant fell on his knees before him. ‘Be patient with me,’ he begged, ‘and I will pay back everything.’ 27The servant’s master took pity on him, canceled the debt and let him go.
28″But when that servant went out, he found one of his fellow servants who owed him a hundred denarii.[b] He grabbed him and began to choke him. ‘Pay back what you owe me!’ he demanded.
29″His fellow servant fell to his knees and begged him, ‘Be patient with me, and I will pay you back.’
30″But he refused. Instead, he went off and had the man thrown into prison until he could pay the debt. 31When the other servants saw what had happened, they were greatly distressed and went and told their master everything that had happened.
32″Then the master called the servant in. ‘You wicked servant,’ he said, ‘I canceled all that debt of yours because you begged me to. 33Shouldn’t you have had mercy on your fellow servant just as I had on you?’ 34In anger his master turned him over to the jailers to be tortured, until he should pay back all he owed.
35″This is how my heavenly Father will treat each of you unless you forgive your brother from your heart.”
So are we to conclude that not only is Jesus OK with charging interest, but that He’s also OK with debtor’s prison and even torturing people who don’t pay you back the principal?
Some of the other parables too do not exactly depict the “protagonists” in a very Christian light. For example, the guy who finds a treasure in a field, then covers it up to buy the field. Depending on how we fill in the details of the story, that could be borderline deceptive.
And should a Christian woman rejoice after finding a lost coin? Isn’t that a bit iffy, investing so much happiness in a piece of money?
I think the answer to all this is that Jesus was clearly trying to use familiar examples to which the listeners could relate. They obviously could not comprehend the true, full nature of the Kingdom of God, and so Jesus had to “dumb it down” for them into parables.
So to repeat, I’m NOT saying that Jesus thought charging interest was immoral, I’m just saying that the Parable of the Talents alone doesn’t clinch it for me one way or the other.
You must consider the possibility that the New Testament texts we have contain corruptions (copyist errors, changes by those who wanted to reinforce their theologies). So a close reading may not make good sense. You might read “Misquoting Jesis” by Bart Ehrman. This book goes into detail.
You’re right, there might be copyist errors involved. I have gone decades thinking it was spelled “Jesus.”
It’s pretty easy to view all of the known copying errors for yourself. Any good Greek NT contains a list of the best manuscripts and cites all of the variations in any verse. 99% are very trivial and involve mostly articles, such as “the” and “a”. Of course, it helps to learn a little Greek before attempting this.
In the Matt 25:14-30 passage, one textual variation has to do with the appropriate position of the word translated “immediately”. The KJV puts it with vs 15 and the NIV with vs 16. The other has to do with the word translated “likewise” in the KJV and “So also” in the NIV in vs 17; various manuscripts have variations on the idea of “in the same way.” According to the Greek NT provided by the Institute for New Testament Textual Research, 3rd edition, those are the only disagreements among hundreds of manuscripts.
PS, I think Bob is right. The parable doesn’t endorse charging interest. Jesus is merely using commonly accepted values to illustrate kingdom truths. But we don’t need Jesus’ specific endorsement of interest. John Calvin wrote that charging interest is not different from charging rent and the Bible has no prohibitions against charging rent. In fact one could argue that the OT endorse rent because the year of jubilee (land returned to its original owner on the 50th year) was effectively a 49 year lease. The OT recognizes this in the law by commanding that gifts of property be prorated according to the number of years left until jubilee.
Calvin considered the prohibitions against charging interest to apply to loans to the poor, not all loans.
True. The important things to remember is that these are parables. Getting too hung up on the details of the parable itself means missing the point that Jesus was trying to make about the Kingdom of God.
In an effort to “dumb it down” Jesus created ambiguities that you could drive a camel through. The level of textualism involved in deciphering the ambiguities should give any Straussian out there a huge case of happy pants. The ironic thing is that it doesn’t make a bit of difference whether Jesus endorsed interest or not – we all live as if he did and then backfill in the message to endorse our viewpoint.
What I can’t figure out is why Jesus didn’t say things in simple declarative sentences? Could it be that he was smart enough to know that doing so would land him in a heap of trouble when the predictions and prophecies didn’t come true. For example, he could have said “I will return sometime within the next fifty years” rather than “like a thief in the night” – one is easily falsifiable, the other spins out Hal Lindsey’s and Jack Van Impe’s on the credulous and truly “dumbed down.”
Knox, if you read the Gospels as if they appeared in the NYT yesterday, yes you will be very confused. But if you try to understand the historical context and apply the principles of hermeneutics (logic applied to interpretation) then it becomes much clearer. BTW Jesus explains clearly why he spoke in parables and not declarative sentences. He started out speaking in declarative sentences and then switched to parables when the opposition from the leadership intensified.
And he didn’t set a date for his return because he didn’t know when it would be. He stated that clearly. But he also saw himself returning at two different times. One was to be very soon in judgment against Israel for its rebellion against him. That return is the one in which he said he would be coming soon, within the life span of the generation to which he spoke, and that was accomplished in 70AD with the Temple’s destruction. However, that return was not to establish his kingdom and he did not stay. But he clearly spoke of another return in which he would establish his kingdom and he clearly spoke of it being a long time in the future.
You routine garners a 9.9 in degree of difficulty but the execution and style numbers will keep you out of the medal rounds.
Context and hermeneutics = Straussianism. Spare me, please. He started out speaking in declarative sentences – this would explain why – even until the point of death – the Apostles had no idea who Jesus was or what he was about? By your logic the parables would have saved him from condemnation by the leadership. Oh wait, he was condemned by the leadership. Wrong again. And, if he knew he was going to his death, why not just keep speaking in declarative sentences? He didn’t know? He is not God?
He didn’t know when that would be? So, Jesus is not God – no longer part of the trinity? Huh? He saw himself returning two different times? So, he was wrong about that too? Jesus did return to destroy the Temple in 70AD? Where is that in the Bible? Are we awaiting the Third Coming?
Fundamentalist – I think your interpretation and logic are fundamentally flawed, unbiblical and overreaching in the extreme.
Olga Korbut you ain’t.
“Context and hermeneutics = Straussianism.”
Whether Straussian or not is irrelevant. It is the only method of interpreting any material that is honest. Anything else is nothing but dishonesty.
“Oh wait, he was condemned by the leadership.”
He wasn’t trying to avoid death; he came to die. But he did want to postpone it until he was ready.
” He didn’t know? He is not God?”
Jesus clearly stated in a declarative sentence (as you demand) that he did not know when he would return. As the church has always maintained, Jesus’ divinity was partially obscured by his humanity. There’s no mystery there.
“Jesus did return to destroy the Temple in 70AD? Where is that in the Bible?”
It occurs in many places, but chiefly in Matt 24, Luke 16 and the book of Revelation.
You really ought to try reading the book, or at least catch the movie. Either would answer a lot of your questions.
Unfortunately, hermeneutics is fine for literary criticism but not for historical criticism – judging the context of a historical document can’t help you determine if it is accurate. Your definition is making square pegs fit into round holes.
I hope you realize how limited you make Jesus and God. “He wasn’t trying to avoid death; he came to die. But he did want to postpone it until he was ready.” What that appears to be saying is he was powerless to postpone it – he’s God and by definition can postpone or accelerate anything – right? Or do you wish to fence in God because is suits your narrative?
It occurs many places? By most accounts Jesus died at age 33 and was born 4 BC. So, at best, he lived until 30 AD. DId he appear in 70AD – return – to destroy the Temple? By your reckoning he was born (first coming), was resurrected (second coming), appeared in 70AD to destroy the Temple (third coming), and is omnipotent and omniscient but doesn’t know when he will return (fourth coming). I am really sorry that you think that is both logical and sufficient. That is, as Bentham would say in a different context, nonsense on stilts.
Your common refrain “to try reading the book” is just insulting, stupid and beneath rational argument. It is because we read the book that we realize its poppycock. Rereading Spider-Man No. 24 doesn’t mean the Green Goblin exists. Why is that concept so difficult to get? Is your mind that facile? Please.
I just caught this nugget in rereading your post:
“As the church has always maintained, Jesus’ divinity was partially obscured by his humanity.”
No offense, but the church can maintain that the Pope is infalliable, that grass is purple and cows can fly – human error multiplied by years of acceptance doesn’t mean it is not error. Either Jesus was God (part of the Trinity) with all the attributes of God or he was a man – engaging in word play and interpolation doesn’t get around the fundamental problem. One cannot be both God and non-God (not to sound Randian as I am not one) but Christians always want to have their cake and eat it too.
Knox: ” judging the context of a historical document can’t help you determine if it is accurate. ”
Of course it can’t and I never claimed it could. I assumed the accuracy of the Gospels in my posts above, but there is plenty of historical evidence for their accuracy.
“Or do you wish to fence in God because is suits your narrative?”
When I refer to God, I mean the God of the Bible. I take God to be what the Bible says he is. And if you would read the Bible, you would find that miracles are God’s least favorite method of acting. Yes, he can do anything he wants. Jesus had to perform a miracle on at least one occasion to prevent his untimely death. But he preferred to let events take their natural course as much as possible. If speaking in parables would do the job, then why perform a miracle? Jesus wasn’t a show off.
Knox: “It is because we read the book that we realize its poppycock. ”
Your posts are proof enough that you have not read it. You advertise your ignorance quite well.
“Either Jesus was God (part of the Trinity) with all the attributes of God or he was a man – engaging in word play and interpolation doesn’t get around the fundamental problem.”
If you would bother to read the book, you would know that the Apostles described Jesus as the God-Man, fully God and fully human. But as Paul wrote, he allowed his humanity to cloak some of his divinity for the brief period of his earthly existence. He retrieved all that was divine after his resurrection and ascension.
Your problem is that you have chosen a materialistic view of existence and are insisting that no other view is reasonable or appropriate. But your choice of materialism was totally arbitrary and unreasonable. What you are saying is that the metaphysical view of reality does not fit your materialistic ideology. I agree completely! If your materialistic view of reality is correct, then Christianity is a total hoax. But there is no reason to go along with your arbitrary preference for materialism.
There is more historical evidence for their inaccuracy than the other way around. As you say you assume their accuracy but that is the exact point – it is an assumption.
When I referred to God I was also referring to the God of the Bible, moron. If I meant Vishnu I would have said so. That is why I capitalized God – to refer to the Biblical rendition.
I never said anything about miracles proving God’s existence – I don’t know why you went down that path.
You remind me of the crazy people on the subway who wander around with spit dribbling out of their mouths mumbling about divine judgment. You are incapable of responding to criticism in anything remotely close to a legitimate way. Because I don’t believe the Bible is proof I haven’t read it because to read it is to believe it. If I disagree with it in any meaningful way – which I have with you in the past – it is because I a) didn’t read it, b) misread it, or c) read it but am incapable of understanding. That is a nice out for you and one that probably keeps you warm at night in your ignorance. You never have to think – you just have to pull out pat answer #32 – you haven’t read the Bible – QED. You are not doing yourself any favors in this area because you are a dilettante and pseudo-intellectual. “Calvin said X about interest” – who gives a crap? Arguing from authority as I have reminded you in the past is ineffective. Is Calvin right? is the better question.
Again, you know nothing about my worldview – real or supposed. Because I disagree with supernatural explanations for events you want to pigeonhole me in some convenient slot which allows you to disengage from thought.
Give me a direct answer to the question I posed above. If Jesus died at 33 and was born in 4BC then how is it possible that he had a third coming to destroy the Temple in 70AD? That is what you said above right? He returned to destroy the Temple in 70AD. Are we awaiting the fourth coming? He was born (first), resurrected (second), destroyed the Temple in 70AD (third) and we are now almost 2,000 years waiting for the fourth – right?
I just want you to admit that your beliefs are based on faith and nothing else. You cannot reason your way to your position because the points don’t connect. At least admit that the gaps are where God is and you believe it in spite of the problems. I can at least respect that.
Knox: “There is more historical evidence for their inaccuracy than the other way around.”
That is simply false. Like most atheists, you blind yourself to the evidence so that you can claim there is none. The evidence for the accuracy of the Gospels is far, far greater than any evidence against them.
“When I referred to God I was also referring to the God of the Bible, moron….f I disagree with it in any meaningful way – which I have with you in the past – it is because I a) didn’t read it, b) misread it, or c) read it but am incapable of understanding.”
Again, you clearly haven’t read the book, then. You cannot say you have read the book and then make the ignorant statements you make. The two are mutually exclusive. Your own statements prove that you have not read the book.
“Again, you know nothing about my worldview – real or supposed. ”
You’re not clever enough to have invented any new kind of philosophy. You’re own writings make your worldview perfectly clear. To paraphrase Mises, you are a second-hand dealer in bad philosophy.
” If Jesus died at 33 and was born in 4BC then how is it possible that he had a third coming to destroy the Temple in 70AD?”
If you would read the book, you would know the answer. The destruction of the temple in 70AD was not a third coming, because his resurrection did not count as a second coming. It was nothing but a continuation of his earthly existence.
“I just want you to admit that your beliefs are based on faith and nothing else. ”
I would like you to admit the same thing. I have given you plenty of evidence for what I believe, historical and logical. Yet you persist in repeating like a parrot that I have no evidence. That is typical of all atheists. Entire libraries have been written on the evidence for God and the authenticity of the Bible. Yet atheists insist that since they haven’t read the evidence, or disagree with it, that none exists. Like socialism, atheism couldn’t exist with atheists being dishonest.
In addition, you are like the socialists that Hayek describes in “Fatal Conceit”: anything your small mind can’t comprehend you dismiss.
Knox: “There is more historical evidence for their inaccuracy than the other way around.”
F: That is simply false. Like most atheists, you blind yourself to the evidence so that you can claim there is none. The evidence for the accuracy of the Gospels is far, far greater than any evidence against them.
The Jesus Seminar makes the claim that 18% of the Gospels are accurate. I can’t claim that their methodology is sound but the Biblical scholars associated with that group would disagree with your assessment. I know, I am sure they are atheists who got together to dismiss the Bible because they are willfully ignorant. On a related note I asked you once for proof of the Exodus and I believe your response was something like “it’s in the Bible.” Touche.
“When I referred to God I was also referring to the God of the Bible, moron….If I disagree with it in any meaningful way – which I have with you in the past – it is because I a) didn’t read it, b) misread it, or c) read it but am incapable of understanding.”
F: Again, you clearly haven’t read the book, then. You cannot say you have read the book and then make the ignorant statements you make. The two are mutually exclusive. Your own statements prove that you have not read the book.
Is that really an answer? You just repeated what I said you would say – “I haven’t read it.” What ignorant statements? You give no examples. My own statements prove I have not read the book? I asked you once about the zombies wandering the streets in Matthew and you never answered me with an explanation with why there were not contemporaneous non-Biblical accounts of the phenomena. You can’t say I haven’t read it when I ask you a pertinent question which deserves a real answer. You are not allowed to respond with an accusation – you need to respond with some meaningful explanation. My explanation is that it did not happen and the lack of contemporaneous accounts bears that out a la Hume. What’s yours?
“Again, you know nothing about my worldview – real or supposed. ”
F: You’re not clever enough to have invented any new kind of philosophy. You’re own writings make your worldview perfectly clear. To paraphrase Mises, you are a second-hand dealer in bad philosophy.
I never said I invented a new philosophy and how you can get from my criticism of your religion to imparting a worldview to me is magical – then again magical explanations seem to work for you. The ironic thing is that we are all Misesians in one way or another it would seem by reading Bob’s blog. I don’t think your discomfort with being confronted with questions you cannot answer qualifies me as a “second-hand dealer in bad philosophy” contrary to your assertion. Maybe others reading this disagree with that assessment but that remains to be seen.
” If Jesus died at 33 and was born in 4BC then how is it possible that he had a third coming to destroy the Temple in 70AD?”
F: If you would read the book, you would know the answer. The destruction of the temple in 70AD was not a third coming, because his resurrection did not count as a second coming. It was nothing but a continuation of his earthly existence.
Most Evangelicals refer to the return of Jesus – now 2,000 years in the offing – as the Second Coming. I have read the Bible and was shocked to learn of your assertion that Jesus returned in 70AD/CE. I asked for an explanation of that phenomena and you responded with your usual “if you read the book” argument (I don’t really like referring to that sophistry as argument but I think that is all you have available). Again, Jesus died around 30AD/CE and ascended to Heaven sometime shortly after the resurrection following various accounts of his appearances (an interesting question in its own right about harmony of the Gospels). You claim he returned in 70AD/CE and destroyed the Temple. That is correct? That is what you claim? Then we are awaiting the Third Coming and the millions of Evangelicals who, I am assuming, have read the Bible are mistaken? Please provide a real answer to your interesting and seemingly unique Biblical interpretation. I will save you the time – I know you think I haven’t read it. Now answer the question.
“I just want you to admit that your beliefs are based on faith and nothing else. ”
F: I would like you to admit the same thing. I have given you plenty of evidence for what I believe, historical and logical. Yet you persist in repeating like a parrot that I have no evidence. That is typical of all atheists. Entire libraries have been written on the evidence for God and the authenticity of the Bible. Yet atheists insist that since they haven’t read the evidence, or disagree with it, that none exists. Like socialism, atheism couldn’t exist with atheists being dishonest.
You have not given me any evidence for what you believe either historical or logical. You refuse to answer basic questions which don’t rely on the self-referential question begging of “the Bible says so.” As I have said to you before you cannot point to one part of the Bible as proof for another. That is no different that pointing to Chapter 1 of the The Lord of the Rings and pointing out that Frodo exists and then saying Frodo is the last chapter therefore he exists. We need something outside the source document to corroborate your claims and you have not provided anything that meets that burden of proof.
Entire libraries have been written about Marxist and Keynesian economics – does that make them true? That is not a rhetorical question either. You seem to be saying that the truth of a proposition is based on the amount of ink spilled on it.
As to your claims that I am dishonest I will leave that to others reading these posts. I asked you simple questions that deserve some answers. How is that dishonest? Where is the proof for the Exodus? Why no contemporaneous accounts of George Romero-type zombies wandering the streets post-resurrection as claimed in Matthew? Did Jesus really return in 70AD/CE? You seem to be the real example of the Fatal Conceit – be so sure that you are right that you won’t let evidence or hard questions get in the way.
If you are going to resond with “you haven’t read it, you are a dishonest atheist, or other people agree with me” style arguments please don’t waste your time. Clearly, that is your favored response and one I that we have all heard before.
One last thing, if you want to discuss the Q source controversy, Markan priority, the controversy over whether Paul wrote Galatians and 1 Corinthians, the idea that Acts is second or third century backfill to bridge the gap between the Disciples and Paul or related topics I would be willing to discuss those very real problems as well but then again, I haven’t read it so what am I talking about?
“The Jesus Seminar makes the claim that 18% of the Gospels are accurate.”
If you understood their methodology you wouldn’t put any confidence in their pronouncements. Besides, there are far more scholars than what make up the Jesus Seminar. The Seminar is a joke among real scholars.
“I never said I invented a new philosophy and how you can get from my criticism of your religion to imparting a worldview to me is magical…”
There is no magic to it. Take economics as an example. I can listen to anyone speak for five minutes and know whether they are a socialist or not because I’m familiar with all of the schools of economics. In the same way I’m familiar with all of the schools of debate against Christianity and all of the arguments. I haven’t read a new argument against Christianity in over 20 years and I try to read everything I can by atheists and opponents of Christianity. So it was very easy to categorize you with your first post.
“As I have said to you before you cannot point to one part of the Bible as proof for another.”
And I haven’t either. Again, your natural tendency to be dishonest comes out. In fact, I haven’t offered any proof for the accuracy of the Bible at all in any of my posts. All I wrote is that the evidence exists if you want to read it. You insist it doesn’t exist, but that just advertises your ignorance of the topic.
“Entire libraries have been written about Marxist and Keynesian economics – does that make them true?”
Again, you are distorting what I wrote. I never wrote that the existence of the libraries is evidence; I wrote that libraries of evidence exists if you want to read it. Man, you really have a problem with honesty!
“One last thing, if you want to discuss the Q source controversy, Markan priority, the controversy over whether Paul wrote Galatians and 1 Corinthians, ”
I’m familiar with the same controversies, but I’ll bet you have never read a single book that responded to those issues. I have read both sides and the evidence comes down on the side tradition Christian interpretations.
“I haven’t read it so what am I talking about?”
If someone starts telling me what Mises wrote and I know he didn’t write that, what am I supposed to conclude? If you tell me nonsense like what you have been posting and I know the answers are clearly written in the Bible, what am I supposed to conclude. I was being charitable. Your ignorance of the Bible is astounding, yet you claim to have read it. If you have read it, then you are dishonest. Take your pick, but what you say about the Bible simply is not true.
Man, you are a tool.
F: “The Jesus Seminar makes the claim that 18% of the Gospels are accurate.”
If you understood their methodology you wouldn’t put any confidence in their pronouncements. Besides, there are far more scholars than what make up the Jesus Seminar. The Seminar is a joke among real scholars.
What I wrote: “The Jesus Seminar makes the claim that 18% of the Gospels are accurate. I can’t claim that their methodology is sound but the Biblical scholars associated with that group would disagree with your assessment.”
I make no claims regarding their methodology and know it is regarded with skepticism by the conservative Evangelical community – an honest broker would acknowledge that the Jesus Seminar consists of a) scholars and b) that I made no claims as to the legitimacy of their methods just that they disagree with your claim which by definition refutes your argument that there are no good arguments against the evidence of the Bible.
“I never said I invented a new philosophy and how you can get from my criticism of your religion to imparting a worldview to me is magical…”
F: There is no magic to it. Take economics as an example. I can listen to anyone speak for five minutes and know whether they are a socialist or not because I’m familiar with all of the schools of economics. In the same way I’m familiar with all of the schools of debate against Christianity and all of the arguments. I haven’t read a new argument against Christianity in over 20 years and I try to read everything I can by atheists and opponents of Christianity. So it was very easy to categorize you with your first post.
Are you the Third Coming? Clearly, if you can tell what anyone thinks after only five minutes about any school of economics you must be part of the God-head. If you haven’t heard any new arguments then why don’t you answer my questions? I can’t find any reply to anything I asked you. Exodus? Zombies? 70AD/CE? Please answer those.
F: Entire libraries have been written on the evidence for God and the authenticity of the Bible.
Again, spilled ink does not equal truth. I, for the life of me, cannot figure out why you continue to appeal to authority when you condemn it so often.
“One last thing, if you want to discuss the Q source controversy, Markan priority, the controversy over whether Paul wrote Galatians and 1 Corinthians, ”
F: I’m familiar with the same controversies, but I’ll bet you have never read a single book that responded to those issues. I have read both sides and the evidence comes down on the side tradition Christian interpretations.
Don’t place that bet. You would lose.
F: Your ignorance of the Bible is astounding, yet you claim to have read it. If you have read it, then you are dishonest. Take your pick, but what you say about the Bible simply is not true.
Give me one example of something I said about the Bible that was not accurate. I am not talking interpretation just “facts” as told in the Bible. The Zombie question? You won’t give an answer to my question so I just have to guess at what I was supposedly dishonest about. What am I so ignorant about? Give me chapter and verse, please. Tell me what I said that was factually inaccurate concering the Bible. You make claims about Jesus returning in 70AD/CE and provide no chapter and verse to your claim much less answer my question.
Answer my questions next time and stop acting like a petulant child who just learned Santa is a fake. Oh wait, did I just ruin that fantasy for you too? Sorry about that. The Tooth Fairy is real, though. 😉
Interacting with you reminds me of this skit from Kids in the Hall:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O1qNUajsSwI
You want to talk about childish? Any three year old can ask questions, like why is the sun bright? Anyone can fart in a crowd and get a response. But responding to those questions takes time and a certain amount of knowledge on the questioner’s part and an honest desire to know the truth. Asking stupid questions doesn’t indicate any amount of cleverness, knowledge or wisdom on your part. Any child can do that. But responding to those questions would take a great deal of my time, after which you would distort my answers as you have been doing all along to make them say the opposite of what I intended. We could play this game for years, you asking ridiculous questions and me trying to give an honest response which you then distort. So if you know the Bible as well as you claim to, you know the verse “Don’t cast your pearls before swine” and what it means. I would be happy to respond to honest questions from someone truly interested in truth, but I won’t waste my time with someone who obviously couldn’t care less for the truth.
In order to first distort an answer one must be provided with an answer to distort. Since you won’t provide answers it seems you have the cart before the horse.
I don’t think this is a game. People believing untruths means they have a false view of reality and therefore make decisions based on inaccurate information.
It would be one thing if a Keynesian held an invalid belief but nobody made decisions based on that belief. That is not the situation with religion generally and Christianity in particular. People hold a false view of the world and make decisions based on that distorted view – which affects everyone else – even people like me who don’t believe – by infecting public debate with talk of gnomes, elves and messiahs which are not true and lead to distorted decisions and poor outcomes.
The truth shall set you free.
“I asked you once about the zombies wandering the streets in Matthew and you never answered me with an explanation with why there were not contemporaneous non-Biblical accounts of the phenomena.”
Here’s a stupid question, but in the same vein as yours: why are there no non-Biblical accounts disproving the claim that people were raised from the dead and walked about Jerusalem? After all, Christians asserted it did happen. Why didn’t someone write proof that it didn’t happen?
You can’t prove a negative but then you already knew that answer as a scholar of atheist and Christian argumentation for 20 years.
When a three year old asks you a question (not that I would encourage a three year old to be in your presence) do you respond with “any three year old can ask questions” or with answers. As to you farting in the crowd – no comment. Generally, when someone asks a question they are seeking knowledge or trying to get the answerer to think – you know who Plato is right? I don’t believe in the dictum that there are no stupid questions. However, I do believe that your refusal to answer indicates you may have stupid answers.
In the time it took you to not respond you could have at least answered one of the three questions you continually refuse to answer. Your are correct – we could go on like this for quite awhile but my “stupid” questions and your “ridiculous” answers probably wouldn’t edify the readers.
I love the “pearls before swine” dismissal as if that is even remotely legitimate. What an out for the Christian. Apparently, Christians are allowd to talk to the credulous, dim-witted, dull-normal mouthbreather because they are too stupid to question – perferct targets for cult of the “denial of death” but anyone who raises questions – even apparently stupid questions – is “swine.”
I have never encountered a greater dilettante in my life. You run around these boards dropping names like Calvin, etc. but when confronted by a demand for explanation you hide behind the skirts of “I don’t have time” and “pearls before swine.” You are a tool, dufus and disenguous to your core.
And I take it back – the Tooth Fairy isn’t real either.
😉
Hi Bob,
I would agree with you that the purpose of the Parable of the Talents was not to make definitive statements about every aspect of all the story’s elements but was rather an analogy meant to illustrate greater and more literal truths that Christ was imparting to his listeners. So what was this truth he was imparting? I think a very helpful explanation of the meaning of this parable can be found here:
http://www.ligonier.org/learn/devotionals/investing-gods-gift/
• The master returning to his household represents the second coming of Jesus Christ in judgment.
• The “talents” represent the blessings and gifts that God has given to all mankind (see Romans 1).
• The servant’s earning of bank interest on his master’s money (“talent”) is analogous to us producing the good works that show the regeneration of our hearts, faith, and repentance, thereby bringing glory to God.
As the article mentions, the kingdom of God is like a master who gives his servants charge over his household (a common practice of the time and known to the original audience of the parable) much like how God gives us gifts that we should use for his glory. God expects us to use them in a way that he deems profitable. To make this easier to understand for his hearers, he uses the idea of investing money (“talents”). To be clear, Jesus is not attempting to discuss money issues per say. He is saying that we will be held accountable by God for what we did with the blessings he bestowed upon us. Did they lead us to repentance, faith, a changed heart, and good works flowing out from that, or did his truth get suppressed in unrighteousness?
So what does this have to do with charging interest? It must have something to do with it otherwise Jesus would have chosen something else to serve as a metaphor. In this parable, those servants who have increased their master’s property at his return are likened to those who have used the gifts that God has given them. The unprofitable servant (who didn’t so much as earn bank interest on his talent) is likened to sinners who suppress the truth in unrighteousness.
How the subject of interest is being treated in this parable is very relevant to understanding Jesus’ attitude towards it. Interest is being used to illustrate one of the good and productive thing that the unprofitable servant could have done with his master’s talent. In this sense, it also analogously represents how people ought to use the gifts and blessings in a way that brings God glory. I would conclude from this that Jesus was at least not against the charging of interest on money since he wouldn’t use an example of something that was sinful as an illustration of something that was good in the kingdom of God. It would be illogical, contradictory, and counter-productive for Jesus to use the charging of interest as a metaphor if he was opposed to it, thought it was immoral or sinful, or if it were generally prohibited elsewhere in scripture.
My argument wasn’t that the Parable of the Talents proved Jesus loved commerce so much as it proved that he wasn’t against charging interest in principal (which is what “Austrian Banker” claimed). Further evidence that the Bible (and therefore Jesus) does not prohibit the charging of interest in general may be found in Deuteronomy 23:19,20:
“19 “You shall not charge interest on loans to your brother, interest on money, interest on food, interest on anything that is lent for interest. 20 You may charge a foreigner interest, but you may not charge your brother interest, that the Lord your God may bless you in all that you undertake in the land that you are entering to take possession of it.”
There were qualifications given on the charging of interest here and elsewhere in Scripture, but the practice was not prohibited in general.
God bless,
Matt Johnson
But Matt, by your logic, then Jesus had no problem with throwing debtors in prison and torturing them (assuming the translation in the original blog post is accurate). Right?
Hi Bob,
I wouldn’t say that Jesus was positively endorsing debtor’s prison or torture anymore than I would say that in Matthew 25, Jesus was positively endorsing interest.
Remember that these are parables and that my argument isn’t that Jesus was endorsing the charging of interest in Matthew 25, just that interest is used analogously to illustrate something else that is positive, and therefore it wouldn’t make sense for this example to be something that was, in and of itself, a bad thing in the absolute sense.
In the parable of the unforgiving servant, imprisonment and torture is an analogy that illustrates something that is existentially bad or negative – the chastisement that comes from God towards the unforgiving attitudes of forgiven sinners. Imprisonment and torture (your translation is correct since the Greek word for “jailers” literally means “torturers”) is appropriately presented as a bad thing, yet without a literal endorsement coming from Jesus for those actions. Jesus isn’t necessarily endorsing torture or imprisonment here anymore than he is endorsing the institution of earthly kings by using one in this parable as a representation of God (remember that in 1 Samuel, the institution of kings in Israel was against God’s counsel, but he allowed it and used it providentially throughout the history of redemption, culminating in Jesus Christ taking back that title as the “King of kings”).
It is simply to say there is an analogy: A sinful, earthly king who forgives an indebted person but then punishes that person when they don’t show similar forgiveness is analogous in this parable to a holy God (not sinful or capricious like an earthly king) who forgives and shows mercy to sinners but chastises them if they do not show similar forgiveness.
For this analogy to make sense doesn’t require full endorsement of sinful, earthly kings, their kingdoms, or their methods of punishment. All it requires is that there is an analogous relationship to the truth that is being communicated through the parable.
Another good example of what I mean by this would be the use of wine as a symbol of the Holy Spirit because wine, in and of itself, is not a bad thing (elsewhere in Scripture, wine is spoken of as a good thing, but that’s beside the point). Does that mean that the Bible endorses drunkenness or any other possible use or effect of wine? Is wine being positively endorsed in any possible way? I think the answer to this is obvious. Yet, if wine were a bad thing in and of itself, it would be totally inappropriate to use as a symbol of the Holy Spirit. Therefore the use of wine as a symbol of the Holy Spirit is not proof of that Scripture endorses of wine, at least not in an unqualified sense (and there should be other, more clearer passages of scripture to make such a conclusion) but it does heavily imply at the very least that it is not evil in nature or general prohibited.
Speaking of using other scriptures to form a more well-rounded conclusion, did you catch the verse in Deuteronomy I quoted which shows that charging interest was positively allowable under the right circumstances? Since Jesus himself testified to the divine inspiration of “the Law and the Prophets” (Deuteronomy being one of those books belonging to the “Law”) I would make the case that he would, by default, agree with Deuteronomy on the issue of charging interest.
Thanks for the discussion so far. Your thoughts are always welcome and appreciated.
Take care,
Matt