The Parables of the Talents: Two Sides of the Same Coin
I was reading the parable of the talents in Matthew 25 in preparation for a lesson on Sunday. I was already very familiar with it, so I decided to see if Luke (chapter 19) had anything to add in his version, which I don't know if I've ever studied specifically. I'm glad I did. You'll see why.
Matthew and Luke present us with two fundamentally different parables. I don't know which, if either, is more correct, but I think considering them together gives us a far more useful interpretation than doing it alone. Lets start at the beginning (a very good... never mind).
In Matthew's version, which is the one I hear quoted most often, the master departs into a far country and leaves different stewards in charge of different amounts of money (talents). I suppose the usage of "talents" in Matthew, as opposed to Luke's "pounds" is a main reason for Matthew's popularity. We can more easily perceive this version to be about more than money because of what the word "talents" means to us. Whatever the case, each servant is given his stewardship "according to his several ability" (v. 15). This becomes an important difference in the two accounts, because Matthew tells us that the amounts entrusted to each was different, as determined by his ability. Also, there are three servants mentioned: one who receives five talents, one two, and one one.
On the contrary, Luke says (v.13) that the man, specified in the previous verse as a nobleman, "called his ten servants, and delivered them ten pounds." In Luke, the stewardships are equal - one pound each - and the servants are more, although the final accountings of only three are reported in the parable, as in Matthew.
Incidentally, there are no helpful footnotes or JST translations to harmonize any of the differences in these accounts, and I think that is what makes them work together so very well.
Luke interjects at this point that the nobleman has enemies among his constituents who wish to depose him, thereby creating a political element to the story for which Matthew has no parallel. This issue arises again at the end of the parable, when the rebellious ones are sentenced. More on that later.
The next major difference is in the accounting. Whereas in Matthew the stewardships were different while Luke had them equal, in Luke the returns gained by each servant differs while Matthew gives them to be proportionately equal. The first to report in Luke is pleased to say that he has made of one pound, ten (v.16). He is rewarded with stewardship over ten cities (v.17). The second has made of one pound, five and is in turn given five cities to rule over (vs. 18-19). The third has kept his pound in a napkin and made of it nothing (v. 20). He returns it to his lord.
Matthew's servant of five talents has gained "other five talents" (v.20), bringing his total to ten. He is rewarded, not with proportionate cities, but with the promise of greater stewardship and the "joy of [his] lord" (v. 21). He who was given two talents also doubles his amount and is rewarded with the same words as the first (vs. 22-23). The third servant has hidden his lord's money in the earth, not even bothering to bring it with him to his accounting, but saying "there thou hast that is thine" (v. 25).
In both cases, the third servant, rather than being rewarded for keeping safe that which he was given, is punished for neglecting to improve it. In both cases, the talent (pound) of that servant is given to the servant with ten (Matthew: v. 28, Luke: v. 24). In both cases, the Savior then teaches the principle governing this judgment. From Matthew: "For unto every one that hath shall be given, and he shall have abundance: but from him that hath not shall be taken away even that which he hath" (v.29). Luke's language (v. 26) is almost identical, but he excludes the comment about abundance.
Only in Matthew (v. 30) is the final servant cast into outer darkness because he is unprofitable. In Luke, the emphasized punishment is on the rebellious people, who "would not that [the nobleman] should reign over them" (v. 27). These are brought up and slain.
While each of these accounts on their own provides valuable teachings, I think that together they help to show the paradoxical sides of the principles or laws by which the Lord grants gifts and issues rewards. In so doing, they provide a better understanding of these principles and enable us to better exercise faith, as said Joseph Smith, "that the judge of all the earth will do right" (Lectures on Faith).
Let me recap the important differences.
1. In Matthew the stewardships are different. In Luke they are the same.
2. In Matthew, the returns earned are proportionate, in Luke they are disparate.
3. In Matthew, the rewards issued are identical, but unquantified. In Luke, they are measurable and proportionate.
4. In Matthew, the unprofitable servant does not return his talent to the lord. In Luke, he does.
5. In Matthew, the unprofitable servant is stripped of his stewardship and sent to outer darkness. In Luke, the wicked servant is only stripped. The rebellious citizens (not present in Matthew) are killed.
I imagine by now you can guess what I'm seeing here.
The principles placed in tension here are ability vs. equality. God, in both justice and mercy, only grants gifts to us according to our ability - as per Matthew. That means some get more than others. Yet, in His eyes, he has given to each of us equally - as per Luke. We are all given what we need and can handle, which indicates that the Lord knows us personally, but is no respecter of persons. He does not give to any more or less than they are worthy of and ready for - perhaps we might also add than they are in a position to use.
Similarly, as we do our best with what we have (like the first two servants), we all improve our talents/gifts/blessings/stewardships equally in the Lord's eyes. Matthew shows us this because the returns are proportionate. Luke, however, shows us that in earthly measurements some earn greater returns. This should not make us feel bad. In Matthew, the talents were issued according to ability. In Luke, ability was reflected in the returns. At the point of judgment, the servants were on equal grounds in both gospels, having done their best with what they had been given.
When the unprofitable servant reports in Luke, he may at least be credited for taking that which he has hidden from its place and returning it, however abjectly, to its rightful owner. He may not be worthy of a stewardship any longer, but he has at least kept track of what he was given. In Matthew, the unused talent is buried in the ground - probably largely forgotten. The servant will not even go to retrieve it when summoned to his reckoning, but expects his lord to extract it from its hole. In return, he is not only stripped of his stewardship, but denied a place in the Lord's kingdom. He has not had respect for the gift or its giver.
How like these men are we when we refuse to make profitable use of the things the Lord has entrusted to us?
Luke also tells us of another group worth noting. Verse 14 reads, "But his citizens hated him, and sent a message after him, saying, We will not have this man to reign over us." These are not servants of the nobleman, but only those under his authority - which authority they reject. Their fate is arguably the worst of all, as they are not found wicked servants, but outright enemies. They are summarily executed when the lord, "having received the kingdom," (v. 15) returns. I leave that to your own interpretation, but it is interesting to compare and contrast their punishment with that of the unprofitable servant in Matthew.
At least we know from this parable that if we are not improving our gifts, we are losing them. We may also be losing much more. No man can stand still for long.
In my view, the duality in the issuance of rewards is the most comforting. While two persons, like in Luke, may be given statistically different rewards for equally faithful service, this is again due to the principle that the Lord know our standing on the path of eternal progression. He rewards according to what we can receive at the time. The important thing is that both faithful servants preserved their ability to continue progressing. This equality is shown in Matthew, where the rewards of both are described simply as "many things" and "the joy of [the] lord." What greater assurance do we need? When we serve faithfully, whatever our ability or stature, we shall have increase, and we shall have joy.
Matthew and Luke present us with two fundamentally different parables. I don't know which, if either, is more correct, but I think considering them together gives us a far more useful interpretation than doing it alone. Lets start at the beginning (a very good... never mind).
In Matthew's version, which is the one I hear quoted most often, the master departs into a far country and leaves different stewards in charge of different amounts of money (talents). I suppose the usage of "talents" in Matthew, as opposed to Luke's "pounds" is a main reason for Matthew's popularity. We can more easily perceive this version to be about more than money because of what the word "talents" means to us. Whatever the case, each servant is given his stewardship "according to his several ability" (v. 15). This becomes an important difference in the two accounts, because Matthew tells us that the amounts entrusted to each was different, as determined by his ability. Also, there are three servants mentioned: one who receives five talents, one two, and one one.
On the contrary, Luke says (v.13) that the man, specified in the previous verse as a nobleman, "called his ten servants, and delivered them ten pounds." In Luke, the stewardships are equal - one pound each - and the servants are more, although the final accountings of only three are reported in the parable, as in Matthew.
Incidentally, there are no helpful footnotes or JST translations to harmonize any of the differences in these accounts, and I think that is what makes them work together so very well.
Luke interjects at this point that the nobleman has enemies among his constituents who wish to depose him, thereby creating a political element to the story for which Matthew has no parallel. This issue arises again at the end of the parable, when the rebellious ones are sentenced. More on that later.
The next major difference is in the accounting. Whereas in Matthew the stewardships were different while Luke had them equal, in Luke the returns gained by each servant differs while Matthew gives them to be proportionately equal. The first to report in Luke is pleased to say that he has made of one pound, ten (v.16). He is rewarded with stewardship over ten cities (v.17). The second has made of one pound, five and is in turn given five cities to rule over (vs. 18-19). The third has kept his pound in a napkin and made of it nothing (v. 20). He returns it to his lord.
Matthew's servant of five talents has gained "other five talents" (v.20), bringing his total to ten. He is rewarded, not with proportionate cities, but with the promise of greater stewardship and the "joy of [his] lord" (v. 21). He who was given two talents also doubles his amount and is rewarded with the same words as the first (vs. 22-23). The third servant has hidden his lord's money in the earth, not even bothering to bring it with him to his accounting, but saying "there thou hast that is thine" (v. 25).
In both cases, the third servant, rather than being rewarded for keeping safe that which he was given, is punished for neglecting to improve it. In both cases, the talent (pound) of that servant is given to the servant with ten (Matthew: v. 28, Luke: v. 24). In both cases, the Savior then teaches the principle governing this judgment. From Matthew: "For unto every one that hath shall be given, and he shall have abundance: but from him that hath not shall be taken away even that which he hath" (v.29). Luke's language (v. 26) is almost identical, but he excludes the comment about abundance.
Only in Matthew (v. 30) is the final servant cast into outer darkness because he is unprofitable. In Luke, the emphasized punishment is on the rebellious people, who "would not that [the nobleman] should reign over them" (v. 27). These are brought up and slain.
While each of these accounts on their own provides valuable teachings, I think that together they help to show the paradoxical sides of the principles or laws by which the Lord grants gifts and issues rewards. In so doing, they provide a better understanding of these principles and enable us to better exercise faith, as said Joseph Smith, "that the judge of all the earth will do right" (Lectures on Faith).
Let me recap the important differences.
1. In Matthew the stewardships are different. In Luke they are the same.
2. In Matthew, the returns earned are proportionate, in Luke they are disparate.
3. In Matthew, the rewards issued are identical, but unquantified. In Luke, they are measurable and proportionate.
4. In Matthew, the unprofitable servant does not return his talent to the lord. In Luke, he does.
5. In Matthew, the unprofitable servant is stripped of his stewardship and sent to outer darkness. In Luke, the wicked servant is only stripped. The rebellious citizens (not present in Matthew) are killed.
I imagine by now you can guess what I'm seeing here.
The principles placed in tension here are ability vs. equality. God, in both justice and mercy, only grants gifts to us according to our ability - as per Matthew. That means some get more than others. Yet, in His eyes, he has given to each of us equally - as per Luke. We are all given what we need and can handle, which indicates that the Lord knows us personally, but is no respecter of persons. He does not give to any more or less than they are worthy of and ready for - perhaps we might also add than they are in a position to use.
Similarly, as we do our best with what we have (like the first two servants), we all improve our talents/gifts/blessings/stewardships equally in the Lord's eyes. Matthew shows us this because the returns are proportionate. Luke, however, shows us that in earthly measurements some earn greater returns. This should not make us feel bad. In Matthew, the talents were issued according to ability. In Luke, ability was reflected in the returns. At the point of judgment, the servants were on equal grounds in both gospels, having done their best with what they had been given.
When the unprofitable servant reports in Luke, he may at least be credited for taking that which he has hidden from its place and returning it, however abjectly, to its rightful owner. He may not be worthy of a stewardship any longer, but he has at least kept track of what he was given. In Matthew, the unused talent is buried in the ground - probably largely forgotten. The servant will not even go to retrieve it when summoned to his reckoning, but expects his lord to extract it from its hole. In return, he is not only stripped of his stewardship, but denied a place in the Lord's kingdom. He has not had respect for the gift or its giver.
How like these men are we when we refuse to make profitable use of the things the Lord has entrusted to us?
Luke also tells us of another group worth noting. Verse 14 reads, "But his citizens hated him, and sent a message after him, saying, We will not have this man to reign over us." These are not servants of the nobleman, but only those under his authority - which authority they reject. Their fate is arguably the worst of all, as they are not found wicked servants, but outright enemies. They are summarily executed when the lord, "having received the kingdom," (v. 15) returns. I leave that to your own interpretation, but it is interesting to compare and contrast their punishment with that of the unprofitable servant in Matthew.
At least we know from this parable that if we are not improving our gifts, we are losing them. We may also be losing much more. No man can stand still for long.
In my view, the duality in the issuance of rewards is the most comforting. While two persons, like in Luke, may be given statistically different rewards for equally faithful service, this is again due to the principle that the Lord know our standing on the path of eternal progression. He rewards according to what we can receive at the time. The important thing is that both faithful servants preserved their ability to continue progressing. This equality is shown in Matthew, where the rewards of both are described simply as "many things" and "the joy of [the] lord." What greater assurance do we need? When we serve faithfully, whatever our ability or stature, we shall have increase, and we shall have joy.
Comments
And you know, it's strangely comforting for me to know that we have both a quantitative and qualitative Lord--who blesses us, as you noted, with both increase and joy. I like that thought, a lot.
That's how I felt, too when I was discovering this a few days ago. The other stuff was interesting, edifying, inspiring, or whatever else applies, but the idea you pinpointed was uniquely comforting. I originally covered it much earlier in the post, but decided to move it to the end for that very reason. I wanted the peaceful, hope-creating part of the message to have the greatest emphasis.