I don't understand the parable of the Ten Minas.

Great Debates
21

Why am I the only one who sees this as bindingly obvious?

Jesus is going to go away. He won’t be returning immediately and when he does return he will be a great king. While he is away he is going to give all his subjects some “blessings”, and he expects us to use those blessings to make his kingdom greater. He doesn’t want us to squander those blessings in making our lives safer and more comfortable. He expects us to take risks with the blessings given to us in order to enhance the Kingdom of Christ.

In other words if Jesus blesses you with great wealth, as Zacchaeus had been, then you are expected to use that wealth to enhance the stock of the Christian church, not to make your own life more comfortable. So you give to the poor, you use the money to exemplify Christian principles of charity, justice and forgiveness, you give your money away to just to keep the peace and so forth. Similarly if you are blessed with good looks you use your attractiveness to preach the word or something and so on for every blessing that Jesus gives you to work with in his absence.

And when the king returns he will pass judgment on his subjects. He will punish his enemies who never wanted him as king. And he will reward the faithful based on how well they used the gifts he gave them. And how well they used those gifts will be judged by how much their use has enhanced the Kingdom of God. If a person is blessed with great wealth or intelligence or beauty, yet the Kingdom of God is no more wealthy or beautiful or wise after they die (or after Jesus returns), then the gift has been squandered. Jesus gave them something to work with and ordered them use it to his benefit until he returns, and they didn’t do so. And if someone is blessed with those gifts and when they die the Kingdom of God is twice as wealthy or beautiful or wise, then they will be rewarded.

Hence to everyone who has achieved glory for Jesus, more glory will be given. But as for the one who has achieved no glory for Jesus, only for himself, even the blessing he has will be taken away from him.

I really don’t see anything remotely confusing or koan-like in this parable. It seems crystal clear and in perfect keeping with other Jesus-talk about not stockpiling wealth on Earth, not hiding lights under bushels, the first being last, the cheesemakers being blessed and so forth.

And because it makes perfect sense to me and is puzzling everybody else here I assume I’m missing something. If so perhaps someone could point out what the flaw is in my interpretation?

22

Yep. The way it’s written, the way it’s not explained by Jesus at the end, and the total lack of “fit” with the rest of the parables in that section tell me that it was added at a later date as a way of saying “Jesus supported tithing.”

Re: Blake: yes, that’s what I thought too in one my two possible interpretations, but so far, I’ve only seen it referred to in sermons in reference to tithing.

23

You’re entitled to your opinion, of course, but where exactly were you “confused” in your OP? Sounds like it’s emerging now that you had your interpretation already formed and neatly packaged and were just waiting for someone in this thread to come along and put a ribbon on top.

24

So basically the Atheists are going to get the shaft here when it’s all said and done?

What about people who didn’t get the Minas, and use their own form of currency to be productive? Are they cool?

25

It is explained by Jesus at the end and by Luke at the beginning. Luke says that Jesus told the parable “because he was near Jerusalem and the people thought that the kingdom of God was going to appear at once.” And at the end, Jesus has the king explain what the parable means: “I tell you that to everyone who has, more will be given, but as for the one who has nothing, even what he has will be taken away.” The king’s a Billie Holiday fan.

26

Donald Trump wrote this? Maybe its a guide to playing the market? Lots in the bible doesn’t make sense, its interpreted how it is by the readers.

27

God is a high risk/high reward playa who would have fitted in well on Wall Street.

28

I really don’t see any of that.

As Captain Amazing notes, it is in fact explained twice: once at the beginning as a description of the intended audience, and once at the end for meaning. The previous two parables are also explained twice: once at the beginning for context, and once at the end for meaning. Compare Luke 18:9 and this parable.

Luke 18 beginning: “To some who were confident of their own righteousness and looked down on everybody else, Jesus told this parable”

This parable beginning: “he went on to tell them a parable, because he was near Jerusalem and the people thought that the kingdom of God was going to appear at once”

Luke 18 end: “everyone who exalts himself will be humbled, and he who humbles himself will be exalted”

This parable end: “everyone who has, more will be given, but as for the one who has nothing, even what he has will be taken away”.

How you can say that this parable is explained less well, or indeed any differently at all, to other parables in this section is mystifying, a is your claim that it doesn’t fit with the other parables. It is almost identical to the other parables insofar as it delivers a message specifically to those with wrong thoughts, then it explains that message by noting that those who have in this world will lose in the next and vice versa.

Can you perhaps explain how you think that it doesn’t fit this pattern perfectly??

If that was the intention it is rather badly done isn’t it?

And IIRC the early Christians were more inclined to use it to support proselytizing than tithing, since far more people were blessed with time and voices than with money, so that was the obvious way to glorify God.

Of course it can be used to support tithing, but giving money to help others is hardly out of character for Christian theology, is it?

That’s because it obviously does support tithing. Or at least it blatantly does say that Christians should use their money to advance Christians principles, not to help themselves. Of course it is used to support tithing, as are the passages about storing gold in heaven, not on Earth, because in both cases the passages guarantee people that their tithes will buy them a piece of paradise.

What other passages would you use to convince a Christian to give money to charity? Or are you arguing that Christians aren’t obligated to donate money?

Did you just realise that major religions say that atheists are doomed?

What rock have you been hiding under?

Within the parable there is no other currency. All blessings derive from God. The only currency you get is the minar given you by God. Whether you choose to acknowledge the gift and how you spend it is up to you, but consequences will follow based upon returns.

29

I don’t know about that. If you’re going to take it on face value it makes sense. Say you hired a bunch of investment advisors to manage your money, and one lost most of it and the other never even invested it. I’d probably fire the guy who lost the money but I’d look into whether the jerk who never invested it at all could be charged with fraud. What the king needs is a meaningful way to evaluate the relative riskiness of his servant’s investments, so he can tell if they’re lucky or are actually investing well. But the guy who didn’t do anything at all? He’s the worst.

30

I was not at Superhal’s church, so I have no idea what was said about tithing, but I have never in my life heard this parable linked to tithing or financial support for the church. It really does not even tie in well with tithing, (which was, originally, a tax and thus unavoidable, and is now a duty, not a response to a gift from authority, whether a king or God).

= = =

Without getting into the various possible explanations, (since a good parable is going to have lots of different explanations, anyway), I will note that Jesus did not direct every parable to an audience of Sunday school kids where the gooed guy has to always win. He has a number of parables in which his (adult) audience could take a message from the story without having to accept that every character in the story was acting in a godly fashion. Even the “bad” guys can come out on top if that serves the purpose of the message he was conveying to a first century Jewish or Hellenistic audience. (Much of the context has been lost to us, of course.)

31

Jesus did not say that it was a Jewish king, so the concept of charging interest in some unnamed society would not have been relevant to the story and the audience would have recognized that it would have been a viable way for the timid recipient to get some money back.
Ths issue of paying “use” on money regarding Christians and Jews may not be quite how you envision it. Both Christians and Jews believed that they were prohiited from charging “use” to their own people. (Jews were prohibited from charging interest to Jews and Christians prohibited from charging interest to Christians, but each was free to charge interest to outsiders.) There being far more Christians than Jews in Europe throughout the Medieval and Renaissance periods, there was a much larger customer base for Jewish lenders than for Christian lenders, so Christians employed Jews to arrange for financial advances, (and then condemned them for holding the purse).

32

One thing you’re missing is that it’s painfully obvious that the recipients are not given gifts. They are also not expected to do anything like “give to the poor”. They have a loan forced upon them and ordered to make more money for the king.

33

Ah, right. I thought Christians were completely forbidden to charge interest.

34

Seems to me to be a great parable, in that it has at least two meanings:

  1. Do the best you can with what is given; and

  2. Speaking truth to power = dangerous. :wink:

35

What seems blindingly obvious to me is if you put Jesus in the role of the king, you make Jesus out as a big prick. An outsider who is swooping in and taking power against the desires of the people he’s ruling. Do you really see Jesus as such a jackass?

I agree with this:

Exactly! God/Jesus is showing up uninvited, giving out a bunch of orders, and then punishing people when they don’t obey and make him a profit. Again, a big celestial jackass. Of course, that is his M.O. at various points in the Bible. Particularly the Old Testament. But I don’t see how that adds up to the compassionate Christian god people like to argue for. That’s where the confusion comes in.

36

It favors investment over savings. What’s so difficult to comprehend about it?

37

I don’t understand how we’re supposed to take the 3rd servant when he says,

Is he telling the truth? Is the king a jackass who lays around, does nothing, and profits from others work? (Does Jesus do that???) Or is the servant under a false impression of the king (Jesus), just as the protesting subjects (unbelievers) were?

I mean, we don’t have a lot of information about the scene here. Jesus doesn’t start out saying, “This king was a goodly and righteous man, though his subjects often didn’t realize how hard he was working and thought he was just a leech. They were wrong.” or “The king was a leech and ne’er-do-well, breaking his subjects’ backs so that he could profit unjustly from their pain and misery. But tough crap–he was the king, you know? That’s what subjects have to put up with. Deal with it.”
ETA: like rivulus said:

38

It’s a parable, not an allegory.

39

No one really knows what this parable was supposed to mean. A number of the sayings and parables attributed to Jesus are fairly enigmatic or obscure. Sometimes the writers of the Gospels contributed their own commentary or interpretation (sometimes putting it into the mouth of Jesus), but the truth is that some of the stuff Jesus is credited with having said is pretty weird.

In the case of this particular parable, I don’t think the proffered explanations really make sense. The king wasn’t “giving” anybody anything. He was ordering them to invest his own money and to increase it for him (giving it to the poor was not an option). This is a king who also admits that “I am a harsh man, picking up what I did not lay down, and reaping what I did not sow.” Are those God-like or Christ-like qualities?

If the king is supposed to be Jesus in this parable, then what are we to make of his order to kill everybody who “did not want me to reign over them?” Who is this order addressed to? If the King is not Jesus, who is he?

If the king is Jesus/God, then it’s calling God an asshole who gives orders to murder infidels. If the king is not God, then all the usuual attempts at interpretation are out the window.

I don’t know for sure, but I think the key lies with the king saying, “you KNEW I was an asshole.” I think it might possibly be satirical.

40

Getting on a King’s case for picking up what he did not lay down or reaping what he did not sew is silly. King’s by definition act that way. To castigate a King for behaving in such a manner shows what a stupid servant he had. Kings delegate, and in theory their organizational abilities, their abilities to delegate create a value-added service in the end. If it doesn’t then they are a poor King.

I suppose the third servant thought that King Solomon brought up every stone from the quarry himself.