What Does the Parable of the Talents Mean?
Looking at Matthew 25:14–30 with ancient eyes
What does the Parable of the Talents mean? This woodcut from Historiae Celebriores Veteris Testamenti Iconibus Representatae—dated to 1712—depicts the Talents’ parable (Matthew 25:14–30). Two men bring the money that was entrusted to them back to their master, while a third man searches for his money outside.
What does the Parable of the Talents mean?
Jesus tells the Parable of the Talents (or the Talents’ parable) to his disciples. It appears in Matthew 25:14–30, and another version of the parable can be found in Luke 19:11–27. The story in Matthew 25:14–30 unfolds as such: A man goes away on a trip. Before he leaves, he entrusts money to his slaves. To one he gives five talents, to the second he gives two talents, and to the third he gives a single talent. The first two slaves double their money; they give the original investment and their profit to their master when he returns. The third slave, however, buries his talent out in a field instead of trying to make a profit; he returns only this when his master comes back. The master is pleased with the first two slaves, but he is dissatisfied with the third’s actions. He reprimands this slave and casts him out into the darkness.
Richard L. Rohrbaugh examines the Parable of the Talents’ meaning in his Biblical Views column “Reading the Bible Through Ancient Eyes” in the September/October 2016 issue of Biblical Archaeology Review. Although the story itself is fairly straightforward, Rohrbaugh argues that the Parable of the Talents’ meaning is less clear. An ancient audience would have interpreted it differently than a modern one.
The Talents’ parable has typically been interpreted by the Western church as being about proper investment: Jesus’ disciples are urged to use their abilities and gifts to serve God—without reservation and without fear of taking risks. Rohrbaugh, however, argues that the Talents’ parable is all about exploitation. Whereas a modern, Western audience would applaud the first two slaves for trading and investing well, an ancient audience would have approved of the third slave’s behavior and condemned that of the first two slaves because they profited at the expense of others. Rohrbaugh explains:
[G]iven the “limited good” outlook of ancient Mediterranean cultures, seeking “more” was considered morally wrong. Because the pie was “limited” and already all distributed, anyone getting “more” meant someone else got less. Thus honorable people did not try to get more, and those who did were automatically considered thieves: To have gained, to have accumulated more than one started with, is to have taken the share of someone else.
This interpretation of the Parable of the Talents’ meaning casts the actions of the first two slaves as shameful and that of the third slave as honorable.
FREE ebook, Who Was Jesus? Exploring the History of Jesus’ Life. Examine fundamental questions about Jesus of Nazareth.
The scenario played out in the Talents’ parable (Matthew 25:14–30)—of a master leaving his property in control of his slaves—was not uncommon. In the ancient world, greedy people who did not want to get accused of profiting at someone else’s expense, which was considered shameful, would delegate their business to slaves, who were held to a different standard. Rohrbaugh explains the ancients’ reasoning: “Shameful, even greedy, behavior could be condoned in slaves because slaves had no honor nor any expectation of it.”
Accordingly, in the Talents’ parable, the master leaves his money with his slaves in the hope that they will exploit the system and increase his riches. The first two slaves do just this, but the third “honorably refrains from taking anything that belongs to the share of another.”
FREE eBook: Life in the Ancient World.
Craft centers in Jerusalem, family structure across Israel and ancient practices—from dining to makeup—through the Mediterranean world.
This slave also does not invest his money at the bank, through which he would have earned interest. The master further reprimands the slave for not doing this, but Rohrbaugh points out: “[S]eeking interest from another Israelite was forbidden by the Torah (Deuteronomy 23:19–20), and, elsewhere in Luke, Jesus says that we should lend ‘expecting nothing in return’ (Luke 6:35).”
Should then the actions of the third slave be condemned or lauded? According to Rohrbaugh, reading Matthew 25:14–30 with ancient eyes suggests that the third slave is the only one who behaved honorably in the Talents’ parable.
Learn more about the Parable of the Talents’ meaning by reading Richard L. Rohrbaugh’s full Biblical Views column “Reading the Bible Through Ancient Eyes” in the September/October 2016 issue of Biblical Archaeology Review.
Subscribers: Read the full Biblical Views column “Reading the Bible Through Ancient Eyes” by Richard L. Rohrbaugh in the September/October 2016 issue of Biblical Archaeology Review.
Not a BAS Library or All-Access Member yet? Join today.
This Bible History Daily feature was originally published on September 26, 2016.
Related reading in Bible History Daily
All-Access members, read more in the BAS Library
Biblical Views: The Many Faces of the Good Samaritan—Most Wrong
Not a BAS Library or All-Access Member yet? Join today.
Related Posts
Must-Read Free eBooks
Want more Bible history?
Sign up to receive our email newsletter and never miss an update.
Unlock Unlimited Access to the Bible's Past
Unlock Unlimited Access to the Bible's Past
Become an All-Access Member to explore the Bible's rich history. Get Biblical Archaeology Review in print, full online access, and FREE online talks. Plus, enjoy special Travel/Study discounts. Don't miss out—begin your journey today!
This is an interesting viewpoint! I love it.
This parable was spoken before the beginning of the New Covenant. There was no universal body of Christ, no church , no Indwelling of the Holy Spirit and no spiritual gifts as yet. Are today’s “unprofitable ” servants cast into outer darkness as was him of this parable?
The Parable of the Talents is not always understood properly by interpreters. The third servant hid the talent because he did not want to put it into a bank and let them know he had it. The third servant hid the talent because he thought it was “his” talent and he did not want the lord to return. He was hoping the lord would not return. The master goes along with the accusation. He is accused of being a thief. The third servant thought of this because this is the way he thought about people. However, if the master were a thief, then logically the third servant should have invested the talent in a bank (and registered it with the authorities). There was real evil in the heart of the third servant. That is why the lord had him to be cast into a place of weeping and gnashing of teeth.
Jerry Knoblet
Mr. Rohrbaugh seems not to have even read the text. Plainly, from vvs. 19–30 the traditional interpretation is upheld and Mr. Rohrbaugh’s refuted. The first two are described by Jesus as “good and faithful” (v.21,23) while the last as “wicked and slothful” (v.26). What on earth is the author thinking??
Talk about new speak, Rohrbaugh must have had a serious eye problem if that’s what he got from the talents. Jesus always would tell a servant, “enter into your Lords rest good and faithful servant.” Read the talents, the first 2 slaves are issued the same intended “enter in…” The multiplication of talents and goods is a hallmark of all the biblical giants from Abraham on down. Remember Job got back double towards the end.
Rohrbaugh’s “interpretation” of the Parable of the Talents is absolutely ludicrous. First of all, it’s not his interpretation. This “exploitation” interpretation was first presented by in America Magazine by Sr. Barbara Reid, a Professor of Theology at the Chicago Theological Union. The major sin that Sr. Reid made in her original article, is repeated by Rohrbaugh. They both completely ignore the context of the chapter in which we find the Parable of the Talents. Matthew 25 begins with a parable about the Kingdom of Heaven and the return of Christ and the reward of good and faithful servants. Matthew 25 ends with a description of the Kingdom of Heaven and the return of Christ and the reward of good and faithful servants. So, what would we expect the middle of Matthew 25 to be about? Well, Rohrbaugh, and Sr. Reid, want us to believe that sandwiched in between the parable about Christ’s return and the reward of His faithful disciples and an actual description of Christ’s return and the reward of His faithful disciples, is a parable that has absolutely nothing to do with the Kingdom of Heaven, and that the master who goes away and then returns is not representative of Christ, but rather it is a parable about a wicked master and about how an individual can undermine an unjust economic system! Sorry, Richard Rohrbaugh – and Biblical Archaeology Review – but that dog don’t hunt. There are other problems with this flawed interpretation as well. You can find a more thorough refutation of this interpretation here: https://www.biblechristiansociety.com/newsletter/239-apologetics-for-the-masses-issue-187
The talents are not “abilities” as sometimes supposed. The talents were given to the slaves “according to their abilities.” The talents were responsibilities. Each received responsibilities according to his abilities to handle those responsibilities. The 5 talent man and the 2 talent man discharged their responsibilities while the 1 talent man was afraid. Fear of discharging one’s responsibilities is destructive. Rohrbaugh missed the single important point of the parable.
Thanks heavens for those who refuted this man’s rediculous interpretation of the parable of the talents…its obvious this man does not have spiritual eyes to see or ears to hear what the Word is saying here…with no understanding at all in his fat heart… and it is his own mind’s twisted doctrine that he brings here that would lead many good people astray…the good and faithful servants multiplied the talents/the sharing of the revealed word of the Master here who is symbolic of God…they did not keep it to themselves as the wicked servant did by not sharing all that his Master/God had revealed to him…by burying/concealing it deep within himself..the earth….This is symbolic of our kingdom mandate…we too are to share the revealtion of God’s revealed words to others and not bury it deep in our earth within..
I am astonished that a scholar of note would not simply read Matthew 25:25-30 and see that Messiah literally condemned that first servant to hell! He also penalized the first servant for not putting it in the bank to earn interest and gave that talent to the servant who yielded ten as a reward. The Bible interprets itself just fine, thank you very much.
If this person disagrees, then my suggestion would be to at least mention these passages even in refutation, to say they were added from later Mss. or something similar. But to ignore them is unacceptable in exegetical processes. Also, Messiah spoke Aramaic and the word for “talents” in Aramaic (and in the Peshitta, the received Aramaic NT) also means “cities”, which puts a whole other complexion on the matter. Please be more thorough next time.
Respectfully yours,
Andrew Gabriel Roth
Translator, Aramaic English New Testament
Rohrbaugh gives us a great example of how ideology blinds oneself to the obvious meaning of Scripture. His interpretation (and apparently Barbara Reid’s) are clearly socialist/marxist in nature. And like all ideas of man, need to twist Scripture in an attempt to legitimize their ideology. As Francis Schaeffer said, communism is a Christian heresy.
I suspect the author “interpreted” this passage as he would LIKE to see it – not as it is actually stated in scripture. That is called “self-deception”. The Bible says there will much “deceiving and being deceived” going on in the “last days”. I do believe we are there!