Be Faithful: The Parable of the Talents, Matthew 25:14-30

Open your Bibles with me to Matthew 25:14-30, and the focal point of this third of three parables is to be faithful; it is the parable of the talents. This is one of those parables that is frequently misused and abused and misinterpreted in many ways. We have to understand to whom Jesus is speaking when he tells this parable. We have to understand the context of this parable: that Jesus is not talking to church age believers, He's not talking to church age believers through the disciples; He's not talking to Christians at all. He is not talking about spiritual gifts, He's not talking about many of these things that people go to try to relate this to us as believers today. The emphasis, as will see, is a counterpart to the parable of the ten virgins, the parable that immediately precedes it. They are emphasizing two different qualities that are important for those who are waiting, watching, and anticipating the kingdom at the end of the Tribulation period. So it's a parable.

A parable is a story that is told, and as this story is told it is then related to some spiritual truths. One of the things that we have to remember is that parables are not teaching doctrine. Don't ever build your theology or your doctrine on parables. Parables are illustrations of doctrine that is being taught, and so we have to look at the epistles, we have to look at Jesus' specific teaching, and other passages in the Gospels; we have to look at Old Testament contexts in order to get to the doctrine that's there. But parables are just illustrations. Often that is that is misunderstood.

I have four things that I want to a review us on when it comes to interpreting parables. First of all, parables are not used to interpret other parables, unless the context links them together. For example, in Matthew 13 you have the parables related to previously unrevealed information about the kingdom—the parable of the soils, the parable of the tares that are sown among the among the wheat, the parable of the hidden treasure, the parable of the pearl of great price, the parable of the of the mustard seed, the parable of the dragnet; these are all interconnected, and they're interconnected in that original context. We also see it here in this context that there's a parable that is given back in chapter 24:32-35 related to the parable of the fig tree, and that emphasizes that the Tribulation generation could know that the arrival of the King in the kingdom was near, though there is a warning that they can't precisely determine that. Some would debate that because they, especially believers, will be counting down the days.

However, as I studied through the judgments of the Tribulation, especially the sixth seal judgment and a couple of the trumpet judgments where the sun is darkened and the moon by about one third the moon doesn't give one third of its light, there is such disruption that occurs I think people will lose track of time. It will be very difficult for people. I think electronics will be completely destroyed. They are not going to have a cell phone, an iPhone; people then won't have those things, they won't have any of the things that we have today that help us tell time. You say well wait a minute I have a watch. Yes, but that what usually runs on a battery, and that battery may not last. Where are you can get a replacement? I think all of the distribution networks. After that asteroid shower in the sixth judgment it is pretty much going to wipe out all distribution networks and other things. So I don't think people can be able to tell time. They will be generally aware that seven years has gone by but they are not going to be able to count down to the day or the hour, which is what verse 36 says.

And then there is another parable that told verses in vv. 43 to 44. It's not identified as a parable but its an illustration that if the master of the house had known what hour the thief would come he would have watched. That's the focal point it. It builds on the parable of the fig tree—to watch, and you know it's near so you are to be watchful just like the homeowner would be watchful if he knew somebody was going to break in at night. So there's an awareness to be prepared. And then you get into these three parables, the faithful servant faithful wicked servant, the wise and wise and the foolish virgins, and then the parable of the talents; and these are all interconnected by the conjunctions that are used at the beginning of each one of these.

We see in verse 14 for and if you're using a new King James it puts in the kingdom of heaven, which makes it accurate because it is continuing the previous the thought of the previous parable, which is a kingdom of heaven parable. It says, "For the kingdom of heaven is like a man", but that "for" takes us back to verse 13. Verse one, then the kingdom of heaven," that "then" take connects it back to verses 45-51. Language connects all of these together and they all develop out of the story of the master and in the thief, and also the parable of the of the fig tree. So these are connected contextually so they can be used to interpret each other.

But the point here is that you and I have both heard people go over to Luke 19:12 and following to the parable of the minas and use the parable of the minas to interpret the parable of the talents. But the parable of the minas is given to the disciples of Jesus on His way to Jerusalem. That would have been on the previous Sunday morning, probably. And this is two or three or maybe even four days later when Jesus is answering a question of the disciples; the context is completely different. There two different parables. There may be similarities in the story, but that's typical in a lot of the stories that are told to illustrate different kinds of things. So you don't use Luke 19, another gospel another day, another story to interpret this one very important.

Second, the kingdom parables are all about Israel and the kingdom. You may think that after listening to me for the last several months on this that that is painfully obvious, but it is not obvious to many people. They try to make these connect to the church. I think this is a major flaw. A lot of free grace people are taking these views and it shows a lack of consistent application of critical dispensational hermeneutics, specifically the distinction between Israel and the church. It also betrays a confusion about the nature of the kingdom for some of them; not all of them, but for some of them. The kingdom parables are all about Jesus instructions about the messianic kingdom, which relates to a literal 1000-year rule of Jesus Christ on the earth. It's a geopolitical kingdom that will be centered in Jerusalem in the future. The kingdom was offered by Jesus and his disciples at the first coming; it was rejected in Matthew chapter 12—the blasphemy against the Holy Spirit by the Pharisees. It was postponed as a result of that, and so you have the mysteries, that is, previously unrevealed doctrine about the parables in Matthew chapter 13. All of these kingdom parables relate to teaching certain facets, usually previously unrevealed truth about the nature of the kingdom.

Third, not every element within a parable has significant meaning for the interpretation. For example, we talked about the parable of the 10 virgins, five who were wise or sensible, and they were prepared, they were prepared because they had extra oil. I talked about the fact that many times you and I have heard people say the oil represents the Holy Spirit; but not in this parable. And even afterwards, I had somebody say, what does the oil represent? They miss the point. Not everything represents something. The oil doesn't represent anything, that's why it didn't say anything about what it represented. It doesn't represent the Holy Spirit. In the story it is the element that was necessary for the 10 bridesmaids to be prepared for the sudden coming of the of the bridegroom. It doesn't speak about the Holy Spirit or anything else, and that causes a lot of misinterpretation. It's called eisegesis, where you are reading other things into a passage. They may be true, but that doesn't mean it is part of the parable.

Then the fourth principle is that Jesus usually gives the specific general principle, which the story is designed to illustrate, at the end. And we have to pay attention to that. He tells us this is what it means. Don't try to make it walk on all fours, just focus on what Jesus says.

As we address this passage first of all we need to review what's going on here. The interconnectedness of this entire discourse that begins in 24:4 and going to the end of chapter 25 is important to understand. It's important for me to understand. I go back and read the whole thing over and over again, and the more I do the more connections I see and realize that one of the problems that has led many to misinterpret parts of this is that we either take the parables out separated from the context, or we don't spend enough time looking at the minutia to get the connections. We have to look at the context.

Second, what's the connection to the previous two parables? That is taking context a little more granular.

Third, we have to identify whom the slaves and servants are. This is a parable of a man who is traveling to a far country, and he calls his servants to him. Who do the servants represent? Are the servants representatives of church age believers? Are they representatives of believers, some two of whom are obedient and one is just a disobedient believer? Is this a contrast between believers versus unbelievers? What is the nation nature of the identification of the slaves and servants?

Fourth, what is the distinction then between the first two and the third? I just alluded to that in terms of salvation versus two saved and one not? Or two who are faithful, obedient believers and one who is just a carnal believer?

Fifth, addressing the question how do we know the salvation status of the third servant? And then finally, the implications for us.

Going back context. The disciples of asked questions: When will these things be? What will be the sign of your of your coming? That is what Jesus is talking about. Some say, well, Jesus is now answering the question is giving additional information. I don't; I think that's possible, but I think after studying this that that isn't what's going on here. I keep coming back to the fact that this is a Jewish topic, a Jewish question related to a Jewish issue and he's talking to the disciples as representatives of the Jewish community.

This morning I was back reading through Matthew 23. I'm convinced chapter 24 has to come out of our understanding of chapter 23. In chapter 23 Jesus absolutely blasts the Pharisees and the scribes. "Scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites, woe to you," He says seven times. He is announcing judgment. The whole context of chapters 23, 24, and 25 comes down to judgment. We have to understand that. Judgment for whom? Judgment on Israel. Judgment of Israel is at the center of this. And He concludes while He is up in the temple area, verses 37, 38: “Jerusalem, Jerusalem, who kills the prophets and stones those who are sent to her! How often I wanted to gather your children together, the way a hen gathers her chicks under her wings, and you were unwilling. Behold, your house is being left to you desolate!" That is the announcement of judgment on the temple. It is not just their home, it is not there nation; it is the temple. [39] “For I say to you, from now on you will not see Me until you say, ‘BLESSED IS HE WHO COMES IN THE NAME OF THE LORD!’”

Then He leaves he departs the temple crosses over to the Mount of Olives. He looks back at the buildings and says, “Do you not see all these things? Truly I say to you, not one stone here will be left upon another, which will not be torn down.” It's so Jewish; it's all about the temple. So His disciples asked these two questions: When will these things be? When is the temple going to be destroyed? When is this judgment coming? And second: What will be the sign of your coming? The word, for coming is so important; it's PEROUSIA. It doesn't just mean arrival, it also has the meaning of arrival and presence. And they're asking that same question asked over in Acts: "When are you going to bring in the kingdom? That's what they're asking. That is the overall context. He is addressing Jews about this Jewish issue.

Second, He's answering a question related to judgment, and that foreshadows the final judgment related to the eternal disposition of those servants in Israel who either follow the scribes and Pharisees as hypocrites, who will be sent to the lake of fire, or they will serve the Lord in relation to the kingdom. So the parable of the righteous and wicked servant is talking about those wicked servants who are assigned a role, assigned their eternal inheritance with the hypocrites who are already identified in context as the Pharisees. And then there's a contrast between the righteous and wicked, between the wise and foolish virgins, and the faithful and unfaithful servant, and what we see is those who serve the Lord are believers. So that's a contrast between believer and unbeliever.

Third, the context is on Israel, not the church. We have to remember there are four distinct entities that must be distinguished. Jews and Gentiles are distinguished ethnically. A Jew is a physical descendent not just of Abraham but Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. If you don't have Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, you're not Jewish. If you're descendent of Abraham, maybe you're from the your a descendent of Ishmael of the sons of Keturah. If you're a descendent of Isaac, maybe it's in the line of Esau. Not Jewish! It has to be Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. And as an ethnic Jew you are under the Abraham covenant, and what you supposed to do? Genesis 12:2, to be a blessing to all people. That didn't guarantee eternal salvation, it just means temporal privileges and temporal blessing because you are Jewish, because of the covenant.

Gentiles are non-Jews. Whether you're French, and German, Asian, Hispanic, Arab you are Gentile; you're not Jewish. You have Jewish believers in the Old Testament; you have Gentile believers in the Old Testament, like Naaman the Syrian, like the Assyrians in Nineveh that responded to Jonah. You have Gentile believers, you have Jewish believers, but only Jewish believers and the proselytes are under the Abraham covenant. Then in the church age you have church age believers. But in church age ethnicity isn't an issue. If you were Jewish in the Old Testament you had special privileges. Only a male ethnic Jew who was ritually clean could go into the temple and worship God. In the church age it is not restricted by either gender or by ethnicity. There is neither Jew nor Greek, male or female, bond or slave; we are all one in the body of Christ because of the baptism of the Holy Spirit. All church age believers are united in the body of Christ; ethnicity is not an issue.

But after the Rapture it is not a factor anymore. There are Tribulation saints. Tribulation saints can be Gentile or they can be Jewish, but if they are Jewish they are more like the Jews of the Old Testament because they have a special role to play in the Tribulation, and doing what? Proclaiming the gospel of the kingdom. They have the Scriptures; they are to proclaim the gospel of the kingdom. There are going to be hundred 44,000—12,000 from each of the 12 tribes of Israel are saved very early in the tribulation—and their message is, Repent for the kingdom of God is at hand. The Messiah is coming back. You also have the two witnesses, and then you have numerous people who heard the gospel but didn't respond before the before the Rapture and they believe after the Rapture; they respond to the hundred 44,000, and these Tribulation saints are going to be responsible for that message, but primarily the Jewish believers in the in the Tribulation. The passage, therefore, is talking about Jesus' coming, His arrival to establish his kingdom, His presence on the earth all the way through; we don't have a Rapture there.

Fifth point, the Rapture and the Second Coming are distinct events, they are separated by seven years. At the Rapture Jesus comes in the clouds for his church to take them to heaven. In the second coming He comes with the church to the earth to bring judgment and to establish his kingdom upon the earth, and to inaugurate that which is a time of great celebration. It is depicted in the parable of the 10 virgins as the wedding feast. That lasts for a thousand years and so it's a joyful, it's going to be pictured in the parable of the talents as entering into the joy of the master; that is entering into the into the kingdom.

The last point of review is to remind you that the parable of the fig tree was to teach Jewish Tribulation saints to be watching, to be prepared, to be ready for the arrival of the Messiah.

That brings us to the next question, which is what is the connection to the previous two parables? This is important. Jesus strings these together for a reason. In the first of these three parables, the faithful and wicked servant, we read in verse 45: “Who then is the faithful and sensible slave whom his master put in charge of his household to give them their food at the proper time?"

We saw in this parable that the master relates to the Lord, that it talks about the servants, and we saw also that the servants here are not talking about church age servants. Remember Paul, whenever he would begin introducing an epistle would say, Paul, a servant of the Lord; Paul and Timothy, servants of the Lord Jesus Christ, something like that. And so if you look at the Gospels through the lens of the epistles you're going to think servant equals a believer, but that's not true. In the Old Testament Israel is the servant of Yahweh but not everybody was a believer in Israel. The prophets were the servants of God, but many of them were false prophets, and they weren't believers. So in the Old Testament, a servant of God may or may not be a believer, whereas in the New Testament in the church age, a servant of the Lord is a believer. But we can't read church age doctrine back into the Olivet discourse because the apostles, the disciples who were listening, haven't learned that information yet. That's important for the principle.

So they are described as "a faithful and wise servant". To keywords are PISTOS, meaning faithful or reliable or trustworthy, and the word for wise, which is PHRONIMOS, which means wise or sensible. And these are then developed. The PHRONIMOS servant is depicted by the five wise virgins. That tells us that you have to understand the first parable to some degree to understand the parable of the 10 virgins. They're not disconnected; they're not isolated from each other. They are connection to the parable of the 10 virgins is designed to teach what it means to be a wise servant. They are prepared for the coming of Christ, and that means that they have trusted in Jesus to be saved. The 10 foolish are unprepared haven't. As a result they are going to go into judgment.

Now it shifts in the third parable to illustrating what it means to be a faithful servant. So faithful doesn't relate to being saved, it relates to what a saved person is supposed to do in serving the Lord. The focus there is on service, whereas the focus in the other one is on salvation. The faithful and wise servant: the wise one is illustrated by the virgins, and the faithful servant is by the parable of the talents. Four times the word faithful is used in the parable of the talents, so these three are definitely interconnected and must be understood together. In Matthew 24 the Master is Jesus who's leaving on a journey to heaven very similar story, although we wouldn't necessarily use the Master to mean Jesus everywhere. How do we know that? If we went back to verse 43: "Know this, that if the master of the house had known". Master there is not talking about the Lord. You have to interpret each parable to some degree autonomously, but there's still an importance in understanding that connection.

The faithful and wise are the good leaders: the good shepherds, and related to those who are fulfilling their responsibilities in the Tribulation. The evil servants are the leaders like the Pharisees and the evil servants, and their eternal destiny will be will be the same.

There's a parallel between 24:51 and the punishment of the third servant. Matthew 24:51 says that the wicked servant will be cut in two and his portion will be appointed with the hypocrites, and there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth. It is very clear that that describes an unbeliever. He's with the unbelieving Pharisees, and when you come to the end of the parable of the talents, verse 30 says, "and the unprofitable servant is cast into the outer darkness where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth". In both places there is the commonalities, weeping and gnashing of teeth.

The reason I point that out is because there are a number of people in the "free grace" camp who have followed some very bad teaching from some mid-trib people in the mid-19th century that this is sort of a purgatory, a millennial purgatory, and that carnal believers are going to be punished and excluded from the kingdom, maybe even put into some sort of torments, punishment for a thousand years. I think that is just a horrible thing that is the opposite of grace, and has nothing to do with grace, and they ought to be ashamed of themselves. Toussaint, I think, nails it, he says, "Invariably throughout Matthew this phrase weeping and gnashing of teeth refers to the retribution of those who are judged before the millennial kingdom is established". It always describes unbelievers; that's what we'll see.

Who did the slaves and servants represent? Let's look at the text. Let's understand what is going on here and see how this relates. Again I want to remind you that as it begins with the word "for" it is can specifically connecting it back to the parable of the 10 virgins. It is developing the same idea. Thus, if the parable of the 10 virgins is a kingdom of heaven, parable, and it is in verse one, then this is also a kingdom of heaven parable, which is why the new King James will put kingdom of heaven (it is in italics are you new King James, but they're supplying that) so that the English reader understands its connection to the previous parable: that they are both talking about the kingdom and they're both talking about Israel. So it starts off with the word "for" which it always is an explanatory concept or emphasis developing something, but it's not alone in the passage and also has another word associated with it. The word in the Greek is HOSPER and it always indicates a tight connection in a comparison between two things. These two words together in the Greek indicate that important and in tight connection. What we see here is that in the previous parable with the with the 10 virgins the emphasis is on the being prepared by believing in Jesus. That's the only way to salvation—to believe Jesus died on the cross for our sins. Over not of over 85 times in the Gospel of John, you have the verb believe; it never says believe and repent. John concludes by saying, "These are written that you might believe that Jesus is the Christ the Son of God, and by believing you will have life in his name." He never says by believing and having works, never says by believing in repenting, although I think if you understand repenting as simply changing your mind from unbelief to belief that's acceptable, but that's the emphasis: faith alone. That is all that is necessary in order to be in order to be saved. That first parable is talking about preparation in terms of faith in Christ and the second one emphasizes the service, the life of the believer. You see a contrast also, between the believer and the unbeliever.

Second thing that we see in this verse is that it talks about this man traveling to a far country, and he calls his servants together. This is the same word we have in the parable of the wicked and righteous are actually righteous and wicked servant. It's the Greek word DOULOS, which can mean slave, or it can mean servant. Of course servant to depicts somebody who is voluntarily there working for some wage, whereas a slave is someone who has no volition. I think in our anti-slavery, Western society, we like to use the word servant instead of slave, but that's how it would be understood at the time of Jesus. He doesn't have volition to go do other things; he is under the absolute authority of his master. The slave comes, and because of the Jewish context I think we have to understand this in terms of how it's used in the Old Testament. Israel is referred to as God's servant in the Old Testament. That was supposed to be their position. That doesn't mean everybody in Israel was saved but that they were to serve the Lord and they were given a mission to be a blessing to all people. They were given the responsibility of receiving and recording and preserving the Scriptures.

In Isaiah, God talks about the prophets who are the servants, so that relates to religious leaders, in Isaiah 20:3. It calls Isaiah His servant in Isaiah 22:20. It calls David His servant, and Isaiah 37:35, "For I will defend this city to save it for My own sake and for My servant David’s sake”, and says about Israel: "You are my servant Jacob whom I have chosen" in passages such as Isaiah 41:8, 9; Isaiah 44:2; Isaiah 45:4, and then the Messiah as the suffering servant, the great servant of God in Isaiah 53, and throughout the last part of Isaiah. So the servant imagery depicts Israel and therefore it includes both believer and unbeliever. It's not related to church age servants of God, which might indicate only believers now as servants of God.

These servants in the parable are given tremendous privileges and responsibilities. The man who travels to a far country is a description that really relates to the Lord and his ascension and departure. And so he calls his own servants. I think that indicates Israel again as the special servant of God in the Old Testament. It's not a term that would describe them as believers, because all of Israel corporately was His servant in the Old Testament.

And that really gets to the heart of the debate over understanding this passage. Is the unprofitable servant and a disobedient believer or is the unprofitable servant an unbeliever? What will see is evident from his punishment that he is not a believer. We learn that from the context. The broad context takes us back to an analogy with Noah. We first get the parable of the fig tree, and the point is to be ready, to be watchful. It's illustrated by the generation at the time of Noah when this worldwide flood was coming. And back in verse 24:37 Jesus says, "But as the days of Noah were, so also will the coming of the Son of Man be". So there's going to be a comparison and the term "coming of the Son of Man" there uses that same word that takes us back to the beginning. It is the presence of the Son of Man and His kingdom. "For as in the days before the flood they were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, until the day that Noah entered the ark, and did not know until the flood came and took them all away; so also will the coming of the Son of Man be. Then two men were left in the field, one taken the other left."

There are those who think that the one taken is taken in the Rapture. The vast majority, probably 75, 80% of dispensationalists, futurists, take it as taken away in judgment. But for my purposes it doesn't matter, because whether you're taking it as a Rapture view or the Second Coming view, everybody believes that one of them is a believer and the other one is not a believer. Everybody believes one is a believer. They may switch the identification back and forth, they may be confused as to whether the one taken is the believer or the unbeliever, or the one who remains is the believer or unbeliever, but everybody believes the contrast is between believer and unbeliever, and not two different kinds of believers.

That story, that analogy that relationship to Noah is designed to set up what comes next with the thief analogy in verses 43 to 44, and then the three parables. So the contrast in the lead-in is believer versus unbeliever, then you're not going to switch gears and start talking about contrasting believers, carnal believers and spiritual believers in the three parables. It's has to be consistent. Not only that, but when you come to the end of this section with the sheep and the goat judgments, which is not a parable, is not stated to be a parable, when we come to the conclusion of that and our Lord gives the judgment on the goats, we have in verse 41: "Then he will say to those on the left hand depart from me, you cursed, into the everlasting fire prepared for the devil and his angels". Now you can't escape that. That's pretty unambiguous language that that's eternal judgment.

So the opening illustration is Noah and believers versus unbelievers. The closing story is the judgment of the sheep and the goats, which separates believer and unbeliever. It makes no sense whatsoever that the three intervening parables are simply distinguishing carnal believers from spiritual believers, and yet there are a lot of people who are going with that today. It completely miss-identifies the context and abuses it to fit a theological system. What bothers me is that the free grace theology, neither stands or falls by how they by their interpretation of Matthew 24. It's free grace, it has no relationship whatsoever, and yet they consistently want to read their view into this. You all need to be aware of this.

The servants are representing Israel. These servants in the parable are given tremendous responsibilities and privileges. This is true of Israel in the Old Testament. For example, in Romans 3:1 Paul says to the Jews were committed the oracles of God. They were given the responsibility of receiving divine revelation, writing down, recording divine revelation, and preserving divine revelation, which they did. Whether believer or unbeliever they were given that responsibility as a nation.

Second, they were given the responsibility to be a blessing to all mankind. In Genesis 12:2 that is a command; they were to bless all the nations. And ultimately that is fulfilled in the blessing of Jesus the Messiah. And then finally, the Jews were given the messianic King. He would come through the line of David. The Savior of all mankind would come to the line of David, and He would come to ultimately to establish his kingdom on the earth and bring salvation to all mankind. So slaves and servants represent Israel and the treasures given to them represent the blessings and privileges and responsibilities that God was given to Israel.

So what is the distinction then between the first two slaves and the third? This indicates the distinction of those in the future Tribulation period and how they are going to carry on those God-given responsibilities to Israel. If they are believers they are going to proclaim the Word, proclaim the gospel, they are going to be a blessing to all mankind. If they're not, they won't.

Here is the basic story. Matthew 25:15-18 ^NASB “To one he gave five talents, to another, two, and to another, one, each according to his own ability; and he went on his journey. Immediately the one who had received the five talents went and traded with them, and gained five more talents. In the same manner the one who {had received} the two {talents} gained two more. But he who received the one {talent} went away, and dug {a hole} in the ground and hid his master’s money."

What's going on here? Well first of all, this is a lot of money. Dwight Pentecost is usually pretty sharp, and says in his Words and Works of Jesus Christ that he gives the first guy $5000 the second $2000 last $1000. It's a lot more than that. Other commentaries, point out that that five talents is equivalent to 20 years of wages for a common servant. So this is a rich, abundant responsibility that is given to these two these servants. If we put into today's money. One pound of silver is 14-1/2 Troy ounces. It could be gold could be silver but this word in Matthew 25:18 is translated money but it uses the Greek word which indicates silver. A talent of silver would range between 58-75 pounds, we will just rounded it off to 60 to get a low end approximation. If that is what it was, 60 pounds, then, you multiply 60×14-1/2 Troy ounces, and one talent would weigh 870 ounces. At roughly today's prices—I just rounded it up a little. It has been hovering above and below $18 an ounce—at $18 an ounce, that would be $15,660 per talent. For ten talents, that would be hundred $56,660. That's a sizable chunk of change. That is a serious, serious and significant responsibility. It could be as much a $200,000; it's a lot of money.

The first one is given five talents. The second one is given two, which is a little bit less than half of that, so that would be somewhere around a $65-$70,000. And the text says that each is given according to his ability on this isn't talking about spiritual gifts. This isn't a financial message on stewardship. This is talking about the responsibility God gives to Jewish believers in the Tribulation to proclaim the gospel of the kingdom. They are given different levels of responsibility and accountability, just as it believers in every generation are. But this isn't talking about church age believers or Old Testament believers. Each according to his ability, and what does the first guy do? It says in the master goes on a journey and then were are told that he who received the five talents went and traded with them and made another five talents. So immediately he has gone out is making money. He is not wasting time, he is not procrastinating; he gets on board.

Likewise, so does the second guy. He starts investing. Understand they're not just given these resources to just sit on. They are to do something with them; they are to invest them. They don't how much time they have so they are not going to waste any time, so that when their Lord comes back they will have a return on their investment.

But the third guy receives it, goes out, digs a hole in the ground and he hides the Lord's money. What is he doing? This is important for understanding whether this guy is a believer not. First of all, he digs a hole. In the ancient world this was a common way to secure money. If you had a lot of money the best place to secure it was to go and hide it from everybody; dig a hole in the ground and hide it. But this is an act of disobedience because it's implicit that they are to do something in terms of investment, they are to do something with this money to get a return on it because they will be asked for that. So he's clearly expected to use and invest what he was given for the Masters benefit, but he indicates here that he is in rebellion against the authority of his master. Second, his actions indicate that in light of his explanation that he gives later on at the end, when he says, well I was afraid of you because you have the reputation of being such a hard man that I just hid it in the ground, and here, you can have it back. His actions indicate that in light of that explanation he really wasn't sure if the master would return. So there's a hint of a suggestion here that if he hides it nobody will know that he has it, and if the master doesn't return maybe gets to keep it for himself. He is not being obedient at all.

Third, hides the resources. He not only does nothing with them, he hides them. This is comparable to Romans 1:18-21 which we been studying on Thursday night as suppressing the truth in unrighteousness. It's hiding it; it's hiding the truth, holding it down. That would indicate an unbeliever. But there's more that would suggest that. Next he lies about the master. Verse 19, after time the Lord comes back and he is comes to settle accounts with the servants. The first one comes and brings the five talents and brings five more talents and said, Lord, you gave to me five talents; I have gained five more besides them. What does the Lord say? Well done good and faithful servant. Now the idea of good indicates someone who has done what he is supposed to do. He has done a good thing. Good is a general word, just as in English, it can have more specific meanings, but in the context it's close to faithful. It's that idea that he is doing what he supposed to do; he is faithful; he is reliable; he is dependable. And the master says, "You are faithful over a few things, I will make you ruler over many things. Enter into the joy of your Lord." This is the act of great generosity.

What is the third servant going to say? "You are a hard man, hard to please". Is this the example of a hard man? No, he is generous. "You did well. I'm going to reward you abundantly, graciously, generously." He praises him; he is not exhibiting this kind of attitude all that is depicted by the unfaithful servant.

And then in verses 22 and 23 the same thing happens with the servant with the two talents. He repeats almost the identical thing in verse 23: he is a good and faithful servant. "You been faithful over a few things, I will make you ruler over many things. He is saying you have been faithful in two things I'm going to make you ruler over two things, you been faithful, and five things I will make you ruler over five things, you been faithful in five things, I'm going to make you ruler over many, many things. So the reward is extremely bountiful and generous, far more than would have been accepted.

As we go on to talk about that third servant, this is what it really indicates his eternal status. He lies about the master. In verse 24 he says, "Master, I knew you to be a hard man, reaping where you did not sow and gathering where you scattered no {seed.}". But that's not what is indicated by what the master does with the first two servants, so he lies about the master. This is comparable to the unbeliever who is lying about God. First there is the suppression of truth, and then there is replacing truth with a lie. Then he says, "And I was afraid, and went away and hid your talent in the ground. See, you have what is yours."

Who was the first person to become afraid in the Bible? Adam. Why? Because the Lord showed up and he had been disobedient. At that point he's been unbeliever. So that would argue in favor of the fact that he is an unbeliever. Next, he is inconsistent with his own story. "Lord, you are harsh." But listen to what the master says. The master says to him, "You wicked and lazy servant, you knew that I reap where I have not sown and gather where I have not scattered seed." This statement there doesn't communicate well in English, it sounds like he is saying, "Yes, you're right; I'm a hard master and I reap where I haven't sown and gather where I haven't scattered seed." He saying this is what you think is true.

For those of you have been working through Thursday night apologetics. He is saying that this is your presupposition, it's a lie and you can't even live consistently with your presupposition. You are an evolutionist who believes that everything is relative. You can't live consistently with that presupposition. He is saying, "If I am really what you think I am you would have gone to put the money in the bank and it would at least gotten one per cent interest. He is exposing the reality of the lie, that even the wicked servant didn't believe it. So he saying, "You are making the whole thing up, you are lying. He is exposing his unbelief. He doesn't believe ultimately that master was going to come back, and so the master is pointing out that his unbelief is ultimately inconsistent and internally inconsistent, and he is not living on the basis of his own unbelief.

This in further indicates that this is not a believer. He is called a wicked and lazy servant. The lazy servant is a word indicating timid, troublesome hesitating, and it's tied with the word in PONEROS, which indicates evil often, and in the context of the wicked servant stated earlier, indicates unbelief.

So he says you should have just put the money in the bank. Now what the Lord does is take what he gave him gives it to those who are the believers who have something. He states the principle "For to everyone who has, more will be given, and he will have abundance, but from him who does not have, even what he has will be taken away." And what is interesting is to put the noted here is this proverbial statement is used in Matthew 13:12, and it speaks of the unbelievers who rejected Jesus in Matthew 12; again indicating he is not a believer. And then finally he is cast into outer darkness where there is weeping and gnashing of teeth—always used of the judgment of unbelievers. This is not just a being ashamed at the judgment seat of Christ; this is a horrible punishment that's depicted there.

That brings us to the last question, which is, what are the implications for us? Just as Israel was given tremendous privileges and responsibilities by the Lord and will be held accountable for them, we as believers are given incredible blessings. We have been blessed with every spiritual blessing in the heavenlies; we have been given an unbelievable amount of spiritual resources with the indwelling of God the Holy Spirit and the filling of the spirit and the completed canon of Scripture. And we will be held accountable for how we use it. There is an implication there for us; there is accountability in God's plan. Just because were saved doesn't mean there's not going to be accountability. And so we need to use what God has given us for His glory and for the benefit of the body of Christ; we need to be good servants. But that's not what the message is teaching. That's only an implication of the message. What the message is teaching is that there will be a judgment of surviving Jews at the end of the Tribulation. Some will be believers, and they will enter the joy of the Lord. They will go into the kingdom; they will go into the wedding feast like the five faithful virgins. They will be rewarded like the faithful servant. But there are those who are going to be like the evil servant, not a believer, like the foolish virgins who were not believers, and like the third servant who was afraid of his master, and they will be sent to eternal punishment. The only way to avoid eternal punishment in the lake of fire is to believe Jesus died on the cross for your sins.

Slides