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!
Total lack of spiritual understanding of the Parable of the Talents. This parable is about increasing the Kingdom with souls, not some humanistic Marxist material understanding of the world. Jesus Christ left his disciples with this parable so they would understand their commission in the world. Their purpose is to save souls and increase the Kingdom.
I hate to say it, but this interpretation is one of the most ridiculous things I’ve heard. Regardless of the culture of the time, Jesus’ clear intent was to encourage kingdom expansion spiritual gain, not financial gain). John 15 is a different way of relating a similar truth. “Herein is my Father glorified that you bare much fruit.” The writer displays some gnostic tendencies in providing an interpretation that is 180 degrees opposite if the obvious intended message. Similar to teaching that Judas is the hero of the story, because he was the only one who understood Jesus’ mission, even though though the Bible calls him the “son of predition.”
I agree with you. This I a poor and impropper interpretation if this parable.
There is another possibility: if the third slave had invested the talent but the investment went bad, then the owner would have probably had the slave killed.
I think this interpretation of the parable is completely off in this article. Why does the parable end with, “And cast out the worthless slave into the outer darkness; in that place there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth”? That is a description of hell, is it not? And your interpretation is that the the third slave was rewarded because he did not exploit others’ money as he buried his one talent?
The parable is about faith. The first and second slaves did not exploit — they invested faithfully and wisely. Notice what the master tells both the first and second slaves upon his return — he rewards their faithfulness with how they stewarded what was rightfully owned by the master; “Well done, good and faithful slave; you were faithful with a few things, I will put you in charge of many things, enter into the joy of your master.”
I’m not confident this parable in Luke is, at its core, about stewardship. In context in Luke, it is right before the triumphal entry of Christ and the His Kingship. This parable opens with the idea that the master’s son has been made King. Some took invested their faith in Him and did great things, others greater… and then there was the one who did nothing. He buried it.
Essentially, this is what the religious leaders did with all their knowledge of Jesus, His works and the prophetic word. They did not want Him to be their king. Hence. the difficult outcome noted by Jesus at the parable’s ending. They will perish.
Positioned against this is the triumphal entry. The disciples honor Jesus as King, with praises and song, while the religious leaders rebuke Him. The result for the latter follows the parable… destruction.
The parable is a parable about Israel and the rejection of Jesus. It fits well with the stewardship of gifts and faith, but as a secondary, but important topic – what will we do with our faith to serve our King?
It absolutely amazes me… and I am so guilty of this also… that armchair theologians and talking heads can 100% for sure say what Jesus meant about anything! “We” can conjecture, suppose, and interpret Jesus’s words and the remainder of the scriptural content of the entire bible… but we cannot 100% guarantee we are right… or even worse, for sure and certain, condemn anyone else’s understanding! Maybe if we come to understand our modern lens of viewing scripture through “Christian” eyes limits our ability to come to the written ancient scripture with proper comprehension of its own context. If we truly have an attitude of “fear and awe of God” we will see no “man’s” interpretation of scripture is to be regarded as truly and divinely inspired… I don’t care if Calvin, Luther, Augustine, Chrysostom, or “King James” said it and approved of “it”… they were “human” just like most of us are. Perhaps if we have ears to hear, we will believe Jesus when He said He is the Alpha and Omega/Aleph and Tav/the First and Last… and come to see that Jesus spoke not just into the context of His actively listening audience… but in the context of all ages and for all people no matter the hour, day, and year they live. Let us be careful and fearful as we approach scripture… as we are not the author(s)… it is God’s word and that should give us pause at least “be” in reverant fear of Him.
In reading the article in BHD about the Parable of the Talents, and in the original article from 2016, the Author speaks of beliefs of “Mediteranean cultures” but cites only Jewish sources somewhat later in time (Mishna) and Deuteronomy. Is it possible that those attitudes in fact, are not the attitudes that believers in the early Church should not have had in regard to service to God?. As Jesus’ followers included those potentially equally influenced by Greco- or Romano- culture, is there available evidence of the cited Jewish attitude from all or the most likely other extant cultural inflluences in the Levant at that time. I recognize that space in articles is a limiting factor on complexity and length of discourse, but also recognize the pluralism in belief patterns at that time in that area.