Luke 19: 11-28
Would You Rather Have A Minas Or A Talent?
11 Now as they heard these things, He spoke another parable, because He was near Jerusalem and because they thought the kingdom of God would appear immediately. 12 Therefore He said: “A certain nobleman went into a far country to receive for himself a kingdom and to return. 13 So he called ten of his servants, delivered to them ten minas, and said to them, ‘Do business till I come.’ 14 But his citizens hated him, and sent a delegation after him, saying, ‘We will not have this man to reign over us.’ 15 “And so it was that when he returned, having received the kingdom, he then commanded these servants, to whom he had given the money, to be called to him, that he might know how much every man had gained by trading. 16 Then came the first, saying, ‘Master, your mina has earned ten minas.’ 17 And he said to him, ‘Well done, good servant; because you were faithful in a very little, have authority over ten cities.’ 18 And the second came, saying, ‘Master, your mina has earned five minas.’ 19 Likewise he said to him, ‘You also be over five cities.’ 20 “Then another came, saying, ‘Master, here is your mina, which I have kept put away in a handkerchief. 21 For I feared you, because you are an austere man. You collect what you did not deposit, and reap what you did not sow.’ 22 And he said to him, ‘Out of your own mouth I will judge you, you wicked servant. You knew that I was an austere man, collecting what I did not deposit and reaping what I did not sow. 23 Why then did you not put my money in the bank, that at my coming I might have collected it with interest?’ 24 “And he said to those who stood by, ‘Take the mina from him, and give it to him who has ten minas.’ 25 But they said to him, ‘Master, he has ten minas.’ 26 ‘For I say to you, that to everyone who has will be given; and from him who does not have, even what he has will be taken away from him. 27 But bring here those enemies of mine, who did not want me to reign over them, and slay them before me.’” And when he had thus spoken, he went on before, going up to Jerusalem.’
The apostle Matthew also wrote about this incident. So, let’s see if he says anything different.
Matthew 25:14-30, “14 “For the kingdom of heaven is like a man traveling to a far country, who called his own servants and delivered his goods to them. 15 And to one he gave five talents, to another two, and to another one, to each according to his own ability; and immediately he went on a journey. 16 Then he who had received the five talents went and traded with them, and made another five talents. 17 And likewise he who had received two gained two more also. 18 But he who had received one went and dug in the ground, and hid his lord’s money. 19 After a long time the lord of those servants came and settled accounts with them. 20 “So he who had received five talents came and brought five other talents, saying, ‘Lord, you delivered to me five talents; look, I have gained five more talents besides them.’ 21 His lord said to him, ‘Well done, good and faithful servant; you were faithful over a few things, I will make you ruler over many things. Enter into the joy of your lord.’ 22 He also who had received two talents came and said, ‘Lord, you delivered to me two talents; look, I have gained two more talents besides them.’ 23 His lord said to him, ‘Well done, good and faithful servant; you have been faithful over a few things, I will make you ruler over many things. Enter into the joy of your lord.’ 24 “Then he who had received the one talent came and said, ‘Lord, I knew you to be a hard man, reaping where you have not sown, and gathering where you have not scattered seed. 25 And I was afraid, and went and hid your talent in the ground. Look, there you have what is yours.’ 26 “But his lord answered and said 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. 27 So you ought to have deposited my money with the bankers, and at my coming I would have received back my own with interest. 28 Therefore take the talent from him, and give it to him who has ten talents. 29 ‘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. 30 And cast the unprofitable servant into the outer darkness. There will be weeping and gnashing of teeth.’
Some of you are sitting there confused as to whether or not God’s Word is true or not. Obviously, we have two different accounts of this encounters our Lord had. So, which one is right? Get ready to be confused some more - both are right.
Let me give you some information as to how I come to this conclusion. As you know Matthew was the first one who was an eyewitness having spent some three years with our Lord while He was here on earth. He wrote his version of his remembrance of the things our Lord said and did around 50 AD. Mark was the spiritual son of Peter so he got all his information from another eyewitness and wrote his Gospel about 5 years after Matthew. Now Luke was different. He most likely never even saw the Lord while He was here on earth. As you know Luke was a disciple of Paul. Some of Luke talents and skills was that he was a physician and an investigator. He is credited in writing two books of the bible which are the Gospel assigned to his name and the book of Acts. Some people have suggested that these two books in reality was one in which Luke had gone back to Israel and researched through other eyewitnesses the necessary information in Paul’s defense in his trial with Nero. His Gospel was written about 15 years after Matthews.
Now, you might say that this is all well and good but how do I explain the differences in the amounts and the difference of minas and talents? Perhaps let me first attempt to let you explain it without my description by asking this question, ‘We have a bunch of various versions of the bible in circulation. Which one is the correct one that we should purchase and read?’ Some might say, ‘The King James’. Others may like the NIV, or some other version. So what do you say? No answer, huh? Well, I prefer the King James Version but they are all okay. Why? Because the truth is there that cannot be changed. Will you not agree with me that the same thing is going on here? You know both stories’ share the same truth our Lord Is proclaiming.
I know that this answer might not be good enough. Well, in addition to what Matthew wrote regarding the amounts which he heard personally. When you look at the bible do you not see repetition? If not, if suggest you begin with the book of Genesis and start working your way through the bible again. Repetition is constant. For example our Lord talks about the Creation and then repeats the creation again just in the beginning of the bible. How about the ancestors of people? They are constantly being repeated. Why do I say this? Our Lord Jesus taught constantly throughout His time on earth. In many cases He taught the same message twice. Look at the Sermon on the Mount which Matthew covers in detail. When you read the other versions of the Gospels, ie. Mark, Luke, and John, you will note that they do not match perfectly. Why? Because our Lord taught the same message on different occasions also and these are the ones the other Gospel writers refer to.
When Luke went back to Israel he ran into an eyewitness who gave the teaching in which Luke recorded. This person wasn’t with Matthew when our Lord Jesus did that specific teaching. Yet on another occasion he heard our Lord Jesus teach and give out the details as Luke wrote down. Yet do you not see that the truth is in both versions?
For in Matthew the parable depicts a man who is concerned that his business interests are well looked after while he is away, and hands them all over to three servants, while Luke’s story is to do with a king seeking confirmation of his appointment from his overlord, quelling rebellion and trying out the suitability of certain servants to be governors in his kingdom. Various details are repeated in both simply because they could apply in both cases, but the subtle differences, which are apt in each case, but would have been out of place in the other, rule out the idea that one has been altered up from the other. We are wise therefore to see this parable as standing on its own foundation as a genuine and separate parable of our Master Lord Jesus.
11 Now as they heard these things, He spoke another parable, because He was near Jerusalem and because they thought the kingdom of God would appear immediately.
It is understandable that, with His constant references to the importance of His approach to Jerusalem, together with His no doubt clearly revealed urgency about that approach, and the unwillingness of His followers to believe the worst, they had gained the wrong impression about the Kingdom of Heaven, in spite of His efforts to ensure that it was otherwise. They had probably interpreted His statements about His coming death and resurrection metaphorically in terms of the hard earthly battle that lay ahead whereby He would overcome the opposition of the Jewish leaders, seize Jerusalem, and commence the process which would result in final triumph. In principle they were right. Spiritually that was what would happen as Acts reveals. It was on how this was to be brought about, and the timescale involved, that they had got it totally wrong. This parable was an attempt to correct at least part of that error.
So He stresses His departure to a ‘far country’ to receive His Kingship, the fact that His absence will be sufficient for someone to multiply an investment manifold, and meanwhile that there will be attempts by some to prevent the establishment of His Kingdom. It makes it clear therefore that His appearance as King will not be within the too near future.
12 Therefore He said: “A certain nobleman went into a far country to receive for himself a kingdom and to return.
The stress on ‘far country’ is an indication that they must not expect His immediate return, and that His Kingship will not be granted to Him in Jerusalem. Nor are they likely to interpret it as meaning that He will seek to obtain Caesar’s recognition. That possibility was rejected during the temptations that opened His ministry, nor could His teaching possibly have given that impression. For all knew that when the Messiah came He would receive His authority from God alone. So by the parable He was making it clear that they were not to see Him as immediately setting up a throne on Jerusalem under God, but as departing to God The Father for the purpose of establishing His Kingship ‘in a far country’, in Heaven itself, from where He will eventually return as He has already told them.
13 So he called ten of his servants, delivered to them ten minas, and said to them, ‘Do business till I come.’
Meanwhile it is made clear that His servants will have a job to do. They are being left with responsibilities that they are to fulfill. ‘Ten servants’ - to each of them is given one mina with which to exercise their functions until He returns. The point about this was that they all had an equal job to do, each in their different ways, with a not very large sum. A mina was about three months wages. While therefore a reasonable amount it was not large. The idea was therefore clearly in order to test out the servants without it being too costly. And all who heard His parable could see themselves as equally entrusted with the equivalent of a mina. None need feel overwhelmed, and none need feel left out. Each was to work with what he had been given.
14 But his citizens hated him, and sent a delegation after him, saying, ‘We will not have this man to reign over us.’
However, there were others who rejected completely the idea of His rule over them. And they sent a deputation after Him, basically informing God that they did not want Him as King. In this we see the activities of the religious authorities which would seek to prevent His Kingly Rule being established. This may come as a shock to you but the same type of people are saying the same thing today.
15 “And so it was that when he returned, having received the kingdom, he then commanded these servants, to whom he had given the money, to be called to him, that he might know how much every man had gained by trading.
As the saying goes, ‘Payday – someday’. One day the King will return having received His Kingship. And in that day He will call on all His servants to give an account before Him of what they have achieved with what He had given them.
16 Then came the first, saying, ‘Master, your mina has earned ten minas.’
The first servant who was brought before the King had a success story to unfold. With the mina he had been given he had traded and worked hard, and had produced ten minas. He had increased what he had been given tenfold.
17 And he said to him, ‘Well done, good servant; because you were faithful in a very little, have authority over ten cities.’
The King commended him, and told him that in view of his faithfulness in making such large profits with such a small amount of money he would be given authority over the same number of cities as he had ended up with in minas. The suggestion that such a response is not likely in response to so small an achievement simply overlooks the king’s aim and problems, and must be rejected. For the King had already known that when he returned a number of his present governors would have to be replaced, for it is they who would have taken their stand against him. So to test out ten likely candidates in a small way in order to see if they were suitable as replacements, without making any promises and before he has actually take control of his kingdom, was a very wise and practical move. Such methods are regularly used in big business without revealing their purpose.
18 And the second came, saying, ‘Master, your mina has earned five minas.’ 19 Likewise he said to him, ‘You also be over five cities.’
The second servant came and claimed that he had made five minas. The King responded by setting him over five cities, one for each mina. The principle of reward was now established and would apply to all except ‘the other one’.
20 “Then another came, saying, ‘Master, here is your mina, which I have kept put away in a handkerchief. 21 For I feared you, because you are an austere man. You collect what you did not deposit, and reap what you did not sow.’
But one of the servants came who, on receiving the mina, had begrudged doing what the King wanted. However, he did not dare tell the King that, so he pretended that he had been terrified of losing it because of what the King might do. He informed him that he had gone away and had wrapped it in a neck cloth or scarf, putting it somewhere where it would be safe. For he had known that the King was a severe man who did not accept failure easily, and indeed who expected to always receive more than he gave. By blaming the King he thought that he would get away with it. But his very statement gave him away. It revealed his attitude towards the King, and suggested that in fact his argument was just an excuse and that the truth was that he had just not bothered. You see the key point here is that if this guy had he acted on what he stated that he believed, he would have been the one who worked the hardest.
The contrast with Matthew’s separate story is interesting. In Matthew a huge sum had been entrusted. Thus the man with only one talent had buried it in order to ensure its safety. He knew that if he lost that he was done for. There was no way that he could replace it. Here the sum was not very large and therefore it was not put in quite so safe a place. He would not have liked to lose it, but the loss would not have been all that difficult to remedy. It was just not worth burying. In the two separate parables our Lord Jesus Is bringing out the difference between the idea here, that we are all, even the least of us, given our opportunity to serve, and that in Matthew where the thought was on the preciousness and importance of what was entrusted to the servants. As you read both parables everything fits into place in each, but much would have been out of place in the other.
Please note the statement ‘The other came.’ To suggest that this indicates that originally there were only three servants is totally unnecessary. It in fact confirms the opposite. It indicates the other type of servant to the ones already mentioned, including the seven unmentioned who would be treated in the same way. It indicates the ‘odd one out’. Having given two examples the principles of reward have been made clear. To go through all ten servants would simply have been boring, something that our Great God and King Jesus never was. Now all that was required was to mention ‘the other type of servant’, and our Lord Jesus knew that the audience was in suspense waiting for ‘the other one’, the one who did not fall into line. He was now the one that all the listeners were waiting to learn about. This was the one who was different and not like any of the others. He was the one who formed the contrast. We are probably expected to see that we know what happened to the other seven; they presumably paralleled the first two and were rewarded according to success. The only one who was not was ‘the other one’. Story wise, once the principle had been established, it was ‘the other one’, the one who did not fall into line who was the only other one worthy of mention.
Look at this man’s view of ‘The King’- ‘An austere man.’ One who was exacting and strict. The kind who wanted to get blood out of a stone. This was the servant’s view. It is exactly how many often wrongly see God. And this was why the servant had not fulfilled his duty. He had begrudged doing anything for this hard tyrant. He was as unlike the two who had joyfully fulfilled their responsibilities as it was possible to be.
22 And he said to him, ‘Out of your own mouth I will judge you, you wicked servant. You knew that I was an austere man, collecting what I did not deposit and reaping what I did not sow. 23 Why then did you not put my money in the bank, that at my coming I might have collected it with interest?’
The King immediately spotted the weakness in his argument, and judged him on the basis of it, pointing out that he was judging him on the basis of his own words. In the end what a man says is evidence of what is in his heart. It was not a matter of the servant having been called on to take great risks. The King recognized that he may not have been able to do much, but all he had had to do was put the money with bankers (those who sat at tables as money traders), who would then have paid good interest. With his master’s wellbeing in mind that would surely have been his obvious course. The problem was that he had not been concerned about his master’s interests. All he had thought of were his own interests and how undeserving his master was.
24 “And he said to those who stood by, ‘Take the mina from him, and give it to him who has ten minas.’ 25 But they said to him, ‘Master, he has ten minas.’
The result of his failure was that he lost his mina, unlike the other two who have been mentioned. The minas, with their relatively small value, had been the King’s method of testing his servants. He was not so parsimonious that he took them back. But he was not going to leave one with the servant who had been lazy. Note how in verse 25 the other servant has been allowed to keep his ten minas as a reward for his faithful service. Having fulfilled their purpose the King allowed them to keep them as a reward, for he now had greater duties for them. The odd mina was then given to the servant who had been most efficient, as a symbol of his gratitude. This represented a typical kingly attitude. It was not worth his taking possession of it again, so he told his attendants to pass it to the one who most deserved it. So also our Lord Jesus wanted it known that God was not a miser. The comment of ‘those who stood by’, his attendants, was in order to bring out how abundantly the other servant had already been blessed for his faithfulness, for that is now the point of the summing up that follows.
26 ‘For I say to you, that to everyone who has will be given; and from him who does not have, even what he has will be taken away from him. 27 But bring here those enemies of mine, who did not want me to reign over them, and slay them before me.’”
The significance of the situation is now summed up by the King. Those who ‘have’, because of their faithful service, will receive more. They will receive abundantly. God is no man’s debtor. Those who produce nothing will end up with nothing. Even his blessings will be taken from him. But those who are openly antagonistic will be judged, and judged severely. For the King’s enemies who rejected His rule would be finally destroyed.
It may be that we are to sense here again our Lord Jesus’ awareness of what was going to happen to Jerusalem. Apart from anything else it did not take too much prophetic instinct to recognize that the tension in Palestine could not go on for ever without something eventually sparking off a rebellion large enough to result in the downfall of Jerusalem. For He knew that in one way or another that was what the whole nation was working towards. And the fact that it lay heavy on His heart comes out in His constant repetition of the theme from now on.
However, it also represents the certainly of God’s final judgment, of which what happened to Jerusalem would only be the forerunner. It was necessary for those who were planning to kill Him to recognize that their behavior would not go unpunished. So The Messiah, our Lord Jesus’ message, as so often, is to act as a spur to those who followed Him in order to serve, while at the same time being a warning to those whose presence was simply due to their antagonism against Him.
And when he had thus spoken, he went on before, going up to Jerusalem.’
Having attempted to put right the wrong ideas that His followers had, for our Lord Jesus was wary of any incidents that could be caused by too much excitement at this Passover time, our Lord Jesus then went on ahead of His followers, pressing on towards Jerusalem. He knew that His hour had come. He was eager to begin His journey to the far country, ready for His final return.
So, ask yourself this question, ‘Have you been given tree months worth of salary or a large talent worth?’ You will note that the three month salary was taken from the man who did not appreciate serving the king. I know of a young woman who also thought only of herself and not of her boss. In her case she did receive three months worth of salary. However, in this case it was an end of employment separation final salary payment. I do not know about you but I want the talent?
