The correct interpretation of the Parable of the 3 Servants?

[Shawn Henry]

This Mennonite preacher claims we've gotten this parable completely wrong. Could it be?

https://spaciousfaith.com/2017/11/14/th ... -servants/

His claim is this: The Master in the parable is Satan who had three servants he gave money to and instructions to invest that money in the system of usury that he created, which was created out of greed to suppress and enslave the poor. The two servants happily supported this system of usury, while the one wanted nothing to do with a Master who reaps where he does not sow. (Hint Christ reaps where he sows)

It's a two-minute read and very thought provoking. Let me know what you see in the verses that hint one way or another.

[Shawn Henry]

Here is the article.

(Matthew 25: 14-30)

It is convenient that the unit of money used in this parable gets transliterated as “talent.” So we don’t have to talk about money; we can just talk about our talents and how we should use them and not bury them—because surely we all want to enter into the joy of our master—God.

Of course, it’s hard to maintain this allegory when we get to that troubling part at the end where the master says, “To whoever already has more will be given and to those who do not have, even what they do have will be taken away.” Also the wailing and gnashing of teeth.

We get stuck in this story. But the rural peasants that worked with Ernesto Calderon in Nicaragua immediately recognized this as a story of exploitation. This master is not God, he is a wealthy elite—therefore an oppressor–and the first two slaves are his henchmen.

If we take a step back from the hyper-capitalism of our culture, we can see that they are right. I mean really, how does one earn 100% interest? If our church treasurer announced that our investments had doubled this year, we should have a lot of questions. Like which horses did we bet on? Or what kind of drugs are we selling? Or how old are the children working the off-shore factory? Because there is really no secure and ethical way to make that kind of a profit.

Likewise in the first century. The peasants listening to Jesus knew how those first two servants made such impressive returns. They loaned money to subsistence farmers at exorbitant interest rates. This practice was the mechanism that made the rich richer and the poor poorer.

This type of economic exploitation assured that those who already had a lot would get more and those who had next to nothing would loose even what they had—to the point of having to sell themselves and their family members into slavery.

These first two slaves can only be seen in a positive light if we view the master as good—a stand-in for God. That is, of course, the conclusion we jump to, but all we really know about this master is that he reaps where he has not sown and gathers where he has not scattered seed. The third slave accuses him of this, and he doesn’t deny it.

To a good capitalist, this description can be read as a commendation. He is efficient, industrious, a good businessman. But to rural peasants, he is just a thief. He is taking the crops that they have planted and tended. He is selling those crops to buy unnecessary luxury items for himself while the ones who grow the food live on the brink of starvation.

In reality, it is the third slave who is to be commended. We know this slave had been a trusted member of the master’s household because the master gives him a talent—estimated by some to be the equivalent of fifteen year’s wages. But this time, for some reason, the slave decided not to participate in the oppressive economic system that had supported him all these years.

I wonder why. I wonder why, this time, he followed Jewish teaching and buried the money rather than doing what he knew was expected of him. I wonder why, this time, he chose to stand up to the oppressive master?

We don’t know because that’s not part of the story. We only know the consequence of his action. He was thrown into the darkness where there is weeping and gnashing of teeth. He is completely cut off from his community and from any means of supporting himself. He is, essentially, given a death sentence.

While we Westerners fumble about with our discussions of talents and responsibility, our Christian brothers and sisters living as subsistence farmers in Nicaragua and other parts of the world know that Jesus is simply talking about harsh economic reality. He’s talking about the judgments of this world. About how strong the pressure is to live out the values of the wealthy and powerful, even when those values are counter to the ways of peace and justice demanded by God. And Jesus is talking about the consequences of not living up to those worldly expectations.

It’s not a pleasant story. And it’s no wonder we like to read it as if it is about singing in church instead of about money and power.

When we look at it from the perspective of the peasants, we have to wonder why Jesus even told this parable. How is this possibly good news? To find the good news, we have to keep reading. And preferably in Greek, because the English translations leave out the word “but” in verse 31.

The earthly master throws out the justice-conscious slave, but “When the Son of Man comes in his glory, and all the angels with him, he will sit on his throne in heavenly glory. All the nations will be gathered before him, and he will separate the people one from another as a shepherd separates the sheep from the goats.”

And we know this part, right. We like this part. Jesus welcomes into God’s kingdom all those who have fed the hungry, clothed the naked, cared for the sick, welcomed the stranger. When the Son of Man judges people, it is the third servant who will be welcomed by God and will receive his inheritance—greater riches than those taken from him by his earthly master. While the master and his henchmen will be cast out of God’s presence.

Taken together, these stories contrast the judgment of God with the judgment of the world. I realize that judgment doesn’t sound like good news. The judgment of the master surely isn’t. But, says Jesus, the judgment of God is not like the judgments of the world. God’s judgment is not based on a dollar figure or a ranking of your effectiveness and productivity.

The judgments of God are based on relationships. Did you feed me? Did you visit me? When you finally figured it out, did you refuse to participate in the exploitation of the poor? God’s judgment is about the condition of our relationship to others in the world.

This is good news for our immortal souls. And this is good news for our earthly life.

By looking further in the biblical text, we see the good news of God’s judgment. If we look further in the parable itself, maybe we will see more good news–another ending. The third slave is thrown into the darkness where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth; at least that’s what the master imagines. But maybe the master is wrong.

Maybe that third slave has fed farmers who were hungry and provided clothes for those who needed them and visited them when they were sick. And so maybe, when the third slave is cast out into the darkness, there are people waiting with lamps lit to welcome him into their homes. Maybe instead of weeping and gnashing of teeth there is singing and food and laughter that the master, with all his wealth, will never know.

[Shawn Henry]

Here is the JST.

Matthew - Inspired Version
25:14 For it is like as a man traveling into a far country, who called his own servants and delivered unto them his goods.

25:15 And unto one he gave five talents, to another two, and to another one, to every man according to his several ability, and straightway went on his journey.

25:16 Then he that had received the five talents went, and traded with the same, and gained other five talents.

25:17 And, likewise, he who received two talents, he also gained other two.

25:18 But he who had received one went, and digged in the earth, and hid his lord's money.

25:19 After a long time, the lord of those servants cometh and reckoneth with them.

25:20 And so he that had received the five talents came and brought other five talents, saying, Lord, thou deliveredst unto me five talents; behold, I have gained, besides them, five talents more.

25:21 His lord said unto him, Well done, good and faithful servant; thou hast been faithful over a few things; I will make thee ruler over many things; enter thou into the joy of thy lord.

25:22 He also that had received two talents came and said, Lord, thou deliveredst unto me two talents; behold, I have gained two talents besides them.

25:23 His lord said unto him, Well done, good and faithful servant; thou hast been faithful over a few things; I will make thee ruler over many things; enter thou into the joy of thy lord.

25:24 Then he who had received the one talent came and said, Lord, I knew thee, that thou art a hard man, reaping where thou hast not sown and gathering where thou hast not scattered.

25:25 And I was afraid, and went, and hid thy talent in the earth; and lo, here is thy talent; take it from me as thou hast from thine other servants, for it is thine.

25:26 His lord answered and said unto him, O wicked and slothful servant, thou knewest that I reap where I sowed not and gather where I have not scattered.

25:27 Having known this, therefore, thou oughtest to have put my money to the exchangers; and at my coming, I should have received mine own with usury.

25:28 I will take, therefore, the talent from you and give it unto him who hath ten talents.

25:29 For unto everyone who hath obtained other talents shall be given, and he shall have in abundance.

25:30 But from him that hath not obtained other talents shall be taken away even that which he hath received.

25:31 And his lord shall say unto his servants, Cast ye the unprofitable servant into outer darkness; there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth.

25:32 When the Son of Man shall come in his glory, and all the holy angels with him, then he shall sit upon the throne of his glory;

[Shawn Henry]

Who is the "he" in verse 32. Some may say Christ, but he already sits upon his throne of glory. Is it singular because it is referring to the one man who buried his talent?

[Fred]

Well, if you are anti-capitalism, or in other words anti-Christ, being as that is what made the USA the greatest nation on earth in such a short time as God foretold, then one might take an opposing point of view. But the author makes a few assumptions that are pure fabrication. The faithful servants did not necessarily become loan sharks. Matthew says they traded. Skillfully, I might add. But trade is a rather broad term. One could have said that the faithful servants produced factories and put many people to work, greatly increasing the standard of living to which everyone thanked God. But that took more words. Written words were at a premium in those days before paper.

A tradesman can be a welder, pipe fitter, or a thousand other things. Being a negative Nellie and just assuming the scriptures meant loan shark is quite reaching. Maybe the Mennonite is a flat earther.

[Atrasado]

This parable scares me a little. In it the Lord clearly says that we are accountable for the precious things the Lord gives us and we are responsible to use those things to add to the kingdom.

I don't think the Lord was talking about money, however. Money has no worth in heaven. I think the precious things the Lord gives us are other people, spiritual gifts, and opportunities for Christlike service.

I think the Lord has the unprofitable servant cast into spiritual darkness (really the servant cast himself there) because of two things. First, he didn't even try. If he had even just given the gold to someone else and let them try to do something productive with it the Lord would have been ok with that although perhaps not pleased. But he didn't because he was afraid.

The second reason why seems to be that the servant was accusing the Lord in his heart of being evil. That misunderstanding is why the servant was afraid. The truth is that the Lord gave the first two servants the increase they got, anyways. They just looked at the Lord as the generous, loving master and friend that He is so they weren't afraid to try.

If the other servant changed his heart towards the Lord he would be instantly released from darkness, I would think, because the darkness is in his own mind. So I need to not let this parable scare me and be a little more faithful.

That's how I see this.

[Craig Johnson]

So, it is my opinion, and I am not a scripturist, but this is what I have always thought: this is the Lord encouraging us to bring, lead, convince, help or at least strive to push people towards Him. By doing nothing after we have received His precious truths, we fail to keep our covenant to obey that portion of all His word.
He made a similar statement in Matthew 7:21 Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven. 22 Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works? 23 And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity.
Which I take to mean that people who just talk and make claims are not His followers, and they should understand that He knows all things, He cannot be deceived, and He is not going to accept a statement that is not true so that someone can avoid His judgment.
We are supposed to be doing His will, not just talking about it. We are not supposed to lie to people and parade ourselves as great followers of His, we are to go about doing His will, seeking no reward and being completely honest. And when we appear before Him for judgment our best defense will be to say something like "As far as I can tell I have completely failed thee my Lord, I know I could have done more." And leave it at that. He will judge us righteously and if we put ourselves at the back of the room, but He finds us to be righteous then He will move us accordingly.

[AZRob]

It's foolish to say that you can't achieve a 100% return legally and ethically. It's the combination of money plus work that makes big gains viable. There are dozens of industries that do this. As one tiny example, consider resellers of consumer goods that exploit tiny arbitrages between local and Amazon/Ebay markets. Loan sharking from start to finish is a version of this. With less effort on the servant's part, providing capital would have led the servant and the usurer in the parable to share the usurious profits, whereby the usurer receives the seed capital from an investor (the servant?) but provides his own labor in soliciting loans and collecting profits.

In the parable, you can't really translate "talent" as anything other than "obscene chunk of money." It reminds me of the semi-joke ... How do you make a million dollars? Easy, you start with $2MM!!! Needless to say, I disagree with the Mennonite preacher's interpretation. Instead, I would say the moral from a five-year old's view is: God has given you lots of wealth, so do something with it.

[Dave62]

Well, if you are anti-capitalism, or in other words anti-Christ, being as that is what made the USA the greatest nation on earth in such a short time as God foretold, then one might take an opposing point of view. But the author makes a few assumptions that are pure fabrication. The faithful servants did not necessarily become loan sharks. Matthew says they traded. Skillfully, I might add. But trade is a rather broad term. One could have said that the faithful servants produced factories and put many people to work, greatly increasing the standard of living to which everyone thanked God. But that took more words. Written words were at a premium in those days before paper.

A tradesman can be a welder, pipe fitter, or a thousand other things. Being a negative Nellie and just assuming the scriptures meant loan shark is quite reaching. Maybe the Mennonite is a flat earther.

You have an interesting view there, Fred. I am not impressed a lot by capitalism although I would certainly not consider myself anti-capitalism. It is a useful tool to create the most wealth and prosperity for the greatest number of people. But capitalism is easily corrupted and lends itself to extortion. I submit D&C 104: 15-18 for your consideration.

I'd like your feedback on the following:-

Socialism is the economic order of Hell.
Capitalism is the economic order of the Telestial Kingdom (here and now)
Consecration is the economic order of the Terrestrial Celestial Kingdoms.

[simpleton]

I do not think the Lord's intent in telling this parable had anything to do with money. But beings carnal man loves money so much, He used profiteering with money/talents to convey the similiar idea of increasing good, or "casting our bread upon the waters that it may return a hundred fold.

[Fred]

Well, if you are anti-capitalism, or in other words anti-Christ, being as that is what made the USA the greatest nation on earth in such a short time as God foretold, then one might take an opposing point of view. But the author makes a few assumptions that are pure fabrication. The faithful servants did not necessarily become loan sharks. Matthew says they traded. Skillfully, I might add. But trade is a rather broad term. One could have said that the faithful servants produced factories and put many people to work, greatly increasing the standard of living to which everyone thanked God. But that took more words. Written words were at a premium in those days before paper.

A tradesman can be a welder, pipe fitter, or a thousand other things. Being a negative Nellie and just assuming the scriptures meant loan shark is quite reaching. Maybe the Mennonite is a flat earther.

You have an interesting view there, Fred. I am not impressed a lot by capitalism although I would certainly not consider myself anti-capitalism. It is a useful tool to create the most wealth and prosperity for the greatest number of people. But capitalism is easily corrupted and lends itself to extortion. I submit D&C 104: 15-18 for your consideration.

I'd like your feedback on the following:-

Socialism is the economic order of Hell.
Capitalism is the economic order of the Telestial Kingdom (here and now)
Consecration is the economic order of the Terrestrial Celestial Kingdoms.

I don't disagree with the above. We are now in a Telestial world and so we should maximize the opportunities that it affords us. Consecration works in my own little zion. But if I try to live that way in the world, I will be homeless in one day.

I believe in following Jesus. But if I move from town to town like he did and depend on donations to eat and keep my tent fixed, the government would confiscate my children and throw me in jail.

One can be a capitalist and still follow Jesus. Jesus does not intend for us to be broke and beggars. But we don't have to hoard our loot like the Q15 does. If we are not charitable, we do not get to live with Jesus. But in order to be able to be charitable, we must use the capitalism that God gave us.

[Wolfwoman]

I think it’s an interesting interpretation.
I have always wondered about the usury part. Because wasn’t that against Jewish law? And maybe the other servants traded skillfully and didn’t charge usury to increase their talents. But then with the third servant the lord says “why didn’t you give the money to the exchangers so I could have received usury?”

[Fred]

I think it’s an interesting interpretation.
I have always wondered about the usury part. Because wasn’t that against Jewish law? And maybe the other servants traded skillfully and didn’t charge usury to increase their talents. But then with the third servant the lord says “why didn’t you give the money to the exchangers so I could have received usury?”

The reason he said that was because as a last resort even a moron could have given the money to the exchangers for usury. Not that the other two did anything of the sort. There is nothing wrong with making a profit. Even Christ used the word profit quite a bit as in What profiteth a man if he...

Profit is a wonderful thing. Just ask RMN. It is not profit in and of itself, it is how one obtains it. Even usury can be good if done wisely. If I loan you $10k and you pay me no interest, you have stolen my ability to use my money profitably and you are therefore a criminal thief. Loan sharking is not Christlike.

[Wolfwoman]

I think it’s an interesting interpretation.
I have always wondered about the usury part. Because wasn’t that against Jewish law? And maybe the other servants traded skillfully and didn’t charge usury to increase their talents. But then with the third servant the lord says “why didn’t you give the money to the exchangers so I could have received usury?”

The reason he said that was because as a last resort even a moron could have given the money to the exchangers for usury. Not that the other two did anything of the sort. There is nothing wrong with making a profit. Even Christ used the word profit quite a bit as in What profiteth a man if he...

Profit is a wonderful thing. Just ask RMN. It is not profit in and of itself, it is how one obtains it. Even usury can be good if done wisely. If I loan you $10k and you pay me no interest, you have stolen my ability to use my money profitably and you are therefore a criminal thief. Loan sharking is not Christlike.

Was it against mosaic law to charge usury? I don’t really know. I have heard that it was.

[zionbuilder]

Ether 12
34 And now I know that this love which thou hast had for the children of men is charity; wherefore, except men shall have charity they cannot inherit that place which thou hast prepared in the mansions of thy Father.
35 Wherefore, I know by this thing which thou hast said, that if the Gentiles have not charity, because of our weakness, that thou wilt prove them, and take away their talent, yea, even that which they have received, and give unto them who shall have more abundantly.

[Shawn Henry]

Was it against mosaic law to charge usury? I don’t really know. I have heard that it was.

It seems it was not allowed within the House of Israel, but was allowed outside the House of Israel, depending on how you interpret the following verses

19 Thou shalt not lend upon usury to thy brother; usury of money, usury of victuals, usury of anything that is lent upon usury:

20 Unto a stranger thou mayest lend upon usury; but unto thy brother thou shalt not lend upon usury: that the Lord thy God may bless thee in all that thou settest thine hand to in the land whither thou goest to possess it.

[Dave62]

Could we agree that capitalism is the worst system in the world except for all of the others?

[CuriousThinker]

25:26 His lord answered and said unto him, O wicked and slothful servant, thou knewest that I reap where I sowed not and gather where I have not scattered.

I have never understood this verse. Can someone explain it to me. Why does he say he reaps where he didn't sow?

[Cruiserdude]

25:26 His lord answered and said unto him, O wicked and slothful servant, thou knewest that I reap where I sowed not and gather where I have not scattered.

I have never understood this verse. Can someone explain it to me. Why does he say he reaps where he didn't sow?

I don't have the 'correct' answer but when I find these types of scenarios I'll check other Bible versions of the verse to see if it helps me.
This is a good site that shows many versions of any particular verse without having to click each version to see it
https://biblehub.com/matthew/25-26.htm#

Screenshot_20221231-090015.png (372.64 KiB) Viewed 545 times

Screenshot_20221231-090024-865.png (372.38 KiB) Viewed 545 times

Screenshot_20221231-090044.png (370.65 KiB) Viewed 545 times

[Shawn Henry]

25:26 His lord answered and said unto him, O wicked and slothful servant, thou knewest that I reap where I sowed not and gather where I have not scattered.

I have never understood this verse. Can someone explain it to me. Why does he say he reaps where he didn't sow?

Satan reaps where he does not sow. He tries to steal a heritage that is not his. The Lord Jesus Christ is always the first and primary sower.

[Shawn Henry]

I do not think the Lord's intent in telling this parable had anything to do with money.

The only interpretation at the time was one of money. A talent meant just that and only that. It wasn't until centuries later that the word spread into all other Christian nations keeping the same pronunciation and more or less the same spelling. The word Talent began to include what it is today because of where the parable says the Master gave "to every man according to his several ability". Ability became intertwined with the word Talent.

The original definition is also supported in the text. One does not give skill and ability to the exchangers for usury. Money is the only thing the exchangers take.

I do believe however that this parable was masterly crafted to allow for dual interpretation with our learned interpretation still giving us some value and application and the greater interpretation being the one that we were meant to work for and discern through the spirit.

It's also important to note that our learned interpretation renders the parable just a simple story without hidden meaning which robs the parable of being a parable.

[Pazooka]

I do not think the Lord's intent in telling this parable had anything to do with money.

The only interpretation at the time was one of money. A talent meant just that and only that. It wasn't until centuries later that the word spread into all other Christian nations keeping the same pronunciation and more or less the same spelling. The word Talent began to include what it is today because of where the parable says the Master gave "to every man according to his several ability". Ability became intertwined with the word Talent.

The original definition is also supported in the text. One does not give skill and ability to the exchangers for usury. Money is the only thing the exchangers take.

I do believe however that this parable was masterly crafted to allow for dual interpretation with our learned interpretation still giving us some value and application and the greater interpretation being the one that we were meant to work for and discern through the spirit.

It's also important to note that our learned interpretation renders the parable just a simple story without hidden meaning which robs the parable of being a parable.

Interesting thing I just found in the Gospel of the Nazoreans (a version of the gospel of Matthew) has the one who was given 5 talents squandering it on women of ill-repute.

"For it will be like a man going on a journey, who called his servants and entrusted to them his property. To one he gave five talents, to another two, to another one, to each according to his ability. Then he went away. He who had received the five talents went at once and squandered the substance with harlots and flute-women. He who had the two talents [went out and traded with them and] made two talents more. But he who had received the one talent went and dug in the ground and hid his master's money. Now after a long time the master of those servants came and settled accounts with them. [...] And he who had received the two talents came forward, bringing two talents more, saying, 'Master, you delivered to me two talents; here I have made two talents more.' His master said to him, 'Well done, good and faithful servant. You have been faithful over a little; I will set you over much. Enter into the joy of your master.' He also who had received the one talent came forward, saying, 'Master, I knew you to be a hard man, reaping where you did not sow, and gathering where you scattered no seed, so I was afraid, and I went and hid your talent in the ground. Here you have what is yours.' But his master answered him, 'You wicked and slothful servant! You knew that I reap where I have not sowed 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. So take the talent from him and give it to him who has the [four] talents. For to everyone who has will more be given, and he will have an abundance. But from the one who has not, even what he has will be taken away. And cast the worthless servant into prison. In that place there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth.'"


You’ve got to wonder, by the way that the chapter is set up if the parable of the 10 virgins is directed at those whose master is the bridegroom and the parable of the talents is directed at those whose master is Belial. Notice how the PotT refers to that individual as “the master of those servants.” And it is a chapter talking about people getting sorted when that hour which nobody knows finally comes - - left hand/right hand.

If anywhere close to true, it’s interesting that the devil could have subjects in which he is disappointed, too.

[Pazooka]

I do not think the Lord's intent in telling this parable had anything to do with money.

The only interpretation at the time was one of money. A talent meant just that and only that. It wasn't until centuries later that the word spread into all other Christian nations keeping the same pronunciation and more or less the same spelling. The word Talent began to include what it is today because of where the parable says the Master gave "to every man according to his several ability". Ability became intertwined with the word Talent.

The original definition is also supported in the text. One does not give skill and ability to the exchangers for usury. Money is the only thing the exchangers take.

I do believe however that this parable was masterly crafted to allow for dual interpretation with our learned interpretation still giving us some value and application and the greater interpretation being the one that we were meant to work for and discern through the spirit.

It's also important to note that our learned interpretation renders the parable just a simple story without hidden meaning which robs the parable of being a parable.

Interesting thing I just found in the Gospel of the Nazoreans (a version of the gospel of Matthew) has the one who was given 5 talents squandering it on women of ill-repute.

"For it will be like a man going on a journey, who called his servants and entrusted to them his property. To one he gave five talents, to another two, to another one, to each according to his ability. Then he went away. He who had received the five talents went at once and squandered the substance with harlots and flute-women. He who had the two talents [went out and traded with them and] made two talents more. But he who had received the one talent went and dug in the ground and hid his master's money. Now after a long time the master of those servants came and settled accounts with them. [...] And he who had received the two talents came forward, bringing two talents more, saying, 'Master, you delivered to me two talents; here I have made two talents more.' His master said to him, 'Well done, good and faithful servant. You have been faithful over a little; I will set you over much. Enter into the joy of your master.' He also who had received the one talent came forward, saying, 'Master, I knew you to be a hard man, reaping where you did not sow, and gathering where you scattered no seed, so I was afraid, and I went and hid your talent in the ground. Here you have what is yours.' But his master answered him, 'You wicked and slothful servant! You knew that I reap where I have not sowed 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. So take the talent from him and give it to him who has the [four] talents. For to everyone who has will more be given, and he will have an abundance. But from the one who has not, even what he has will be taken away. And cast the worthless servant into prison. In that place there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth.'"


You’ve got to wonder, by the way that the chapter is set up if the parable of the 10 virgins is directed at those whose master is the bridegroom and the parable of the talents is directed at those whose master is Belial. Notice how the PotT refers to that individual as “the master of those servants.” And it is a chapter talking about people getting sorted when that hour which nobody knows finally comes - - left hand/right hand.

If anywhere close to true, it’s interesting that the devil could have subjects in which he is disappointed, too.

Incidentally, I also found this in the Apocalypse of Peter defining what the closed door consisted of in the parable of the 10 virgins:

The closed door is the river of fire by which the ungodly shall be kept out of the kingdom of God, as is written in Daniel and in Peter, in his Apocalypse.... That company of the foolish also shall arise and find the door shut, that is, the fiery river set against them.

And this makes sense of the fact that the virgins are probably both the living and the dead at the time of the bridegroom’s arrival.

[Thinker]

Maybe interpreting it in certain greedy way$ is less godly, but consider the context… (again)…

First is the lamp/virgin parable - warning of deception from not being prepared to SEE clearly, then is the parable of the talents - a warning against wickedness and sloth. Some are so enamored with materialism that they interpret that to mean focus on making money - but right after the talents parable is the story of the sheep and goats and how people who help those in need will be blessed while those who neglect to, will be punished.

The 3 parables together may be:
1) SEE clearly - do your homework so you’re not deceived.
2) Do your due diligence so you make the most of what God’s given you.
3) “Because I have been given much I too must give…” We can choose, & if we choose well to help others as God would have us, all will be better for it.

[Shawn Henry]

He who had received the five talents went at once and squandered the substance with harlots and flute-women.

That's a super interesting addition to the Parable, thanks.