Conquer Club

As always, I'll begin by saying that I'm an atheist. or agnostic, or whatever. Macbone suggested this as a good follow on from the previous parable threads, and I have to say that although it's one that I've read, I don't have a strong opinion about it.

The relevant verses are Matthew 18: 21-35

show

I guess, following the the arguments of previous threads, this parable might have some interesting aspects concerning forgiveness of debt and trickle down economics. Anyway- thoughts?

What is "trickle down" economics?

I actually think this may be the most straight-forward of the 4 parables you've posted, and of course it has nothing to do with economics. The meaning is actually in pretty plain language. The parable (in general) is used to convey a truth about the nature of God in a way that the people around Jesus would understand. One man begged forgiveness for a major debt that he owed to the king and the king forgave him. However, once his debts were forgiven, he went out and demanded payment of the small debt that someone else owed him. The debtor begged for forgiveness of that small debt, but the servant refused to forgive him. This parable teaches us that just as God forgives us of our massive sins against Him, so to are we supposed to forgive the minor sins that other people do against us.

Night Strike wrote:I actually think this may be the most straight-forward of the 4 parables you've posted, and of course it has nothing to do with economics. The meaning is actually in pretty plain language. The parable (in general) is used to convey a truth about the nature of God in a way that the people around Jesus would understand. One man begged forgiveness for a major debt that he owed to the king and the king forgave him. However, once his debts were forgiven, he went out and demanded payment of the small debt that someone else owed him. The debtor begged for forgiveness of that small debt, but the servant refused to forgive him. This parable teaches us that just as God forgives us of our massive sins against Him, so to are we supposed to forgive the minor sins that other people do against us.

You are skipping over a large part of the significance of 10,000 talents. A vast sum that can't be repaid. Keeping that in mind, that the use of "debtor" in and of itself is a metaphor.

By forgiving a debt that can't be repaid, liken it to someone who does you harm. When one person does harm to another a kind of debt is incurred, a debt that can't be paid back no matter what. By forgiving that person you are following God's examples. For instance, say a person accidentally ran you over with their car and you are paralyzed. Nothing they say or do is going to allow you to ever walk again. He cannot repay or make right what has been done. But hopefully you'd forgive him, especially if he felt great remorse.

Take it even further, someone harms you intentionally and meant to harm you. An even more unforgivable thing, an even greater debt. In these times we find it hard to forgive, do we not? Again, nothing they say or do will undo the harm they have caused, yet we should still forgive. The law could throw him in jail or even execute the perp but it would still be better to forgive them than to carry around that anger for the rest of your life.

What God has forgiven us for is greater than any harm any of us could do to one another. By failing to forgive each other we show God that we do not appreciate the debt He paid for us.

Yet we human beings tend to hold grudges, fail to forgive for even the most minor of offenses. It leads to hate and spite and even greater offenses carried out later upon each other. It's part of the healing process, to forgive he who has harmed you. Without that ability to forgive we human beings would have long ago killed each other off in every increasing acts of violence and retribution. Societal justice will be met, but forgive those who harm you now or else you may not be forgiven for the harm you cause others later.

Patches, thanks for the clarification. I've never been good at remembering the value of the currencies used in Biblical times.

I didn't remember the parable from the title but after reading it I recognized it.

This is a very interesting parable about forgiveness. It just goes to show, "Do unto your neighbor as you would have done unto you." The unforgiving servant did unto his servant, and likewise was done unto him. Treat your neighbor as yourself. The Golden Rule.

That is a very interesting point you bring up patches. I never weighed in on the fact that it was such a big debt as to be humanly unforgivable.

-SG7 ( )

It's interesting that it is cast in the terms of the king and the servants. The king in this case seems to me to represent God/Jesus and the servants represent regular people. Therein lies a possible implication that what prevents the servants from becoming the king is their inability to forgive debts. Or at least one of the character flaws that prevent them from becoming kings anyways.

Just a few thoughts.

1. This speaks against the idea that some have mentioned, and resented, that as long as you believe the right thing, you can just live any kind of way. Living in covenant with God was never meant to be a business deal with loopholes: "you do this and I will do that." It is a relationship where His mercy changes you. The servant is supposed to forgive his fellow servant because of a changed attitude resulting from gratefulness for what he has been forgiven.

2. Good point, Patches. Another point I think Jesus was communicating is that our debt to God is indeed something that we could never really repay.

3. Also regarding Patches' explanation, the things others may do against us, may not necessarily be small, but we are supposed to, in humility, regard what we have done against God as greater than whatever others have done against us.

The moral of the story? If you're powerful enough you can forgive someone their debt and then backtrack if they piss you off. The first servant had had his debt forgiven, he was debt-free, he didn't owe the king anything more than gratitude. Then he went and pissed off the king, and all of a sudden the debt is back and he's punished for owing the king money.

Night Strike wrote:I actually think this may be the most straight-forward of the 4 parables you've posted, and of course it has nothing to do with economics. The meaning is actually in pretty plain language. The parable (in general) is used to convey a truth about the nature of God in a way that the people around Jesus would understand. One man begged forgiveness for a major debt that he owed to the king and the king forgave him. However, once his debts were forgiven, he went out and demanded payment of the small debt that someone else owed him. The debtor begged for forgiveness of that small debt, but the servant refused to forgive him. This parable teaches us that just as God forgives us of our massive sins against Him, so to are we supposed to forgive the minor sins that other people do against us.

I tied it into economics as that was how it was suggested to me based on the discussions in the previous thread. I really have no strong opinion on this one.

To add an element of trouble to the question though, one thing did kind of bother me. It's very easy for a king to waive a debt, or I guess, for God to forgive. He stands to lose very little in the case of the king, or nothing at all, in the case of God. The servant, of course, stands to lose a lot more. In essence, his decision to forgive or demand repayment of a debt is a far weightier concern.

Symmetry wrote:

Night Strike wrote:I actually think this may be the most straight-forward of the 4 parables you've posted, and of course it has nothing to do with economics. The meaning is actually in pretty plain language. The parable (in general) is used to convey a truth about the nature of God in a way that the people around Jesus would understand. One man begged forgiveness for a major debt that he owed to the king and the king forgave him. However, once his debts were forgiven, he went out and demanded payment of the small debt that someone else owed him. The debtor begged for forgiveness of that small debt, but the servant refused to forgive him. This parable teaches us that just as God forgives us of our massive sins against Him, so to are we supposed to forgive the minor sins that other people do against us.

I tied it into economics as that was how it was suggested to me based on the discussions in the previous thread. I really have no strong opinion on this one.

To add an element of trouble to the question though, one thing did kind of bother me. It's very easy for a king to waive a debt, or I guess, for God to forgive. He stands to lose very little in the case of the king, or nothing at all, in the case of God. The servant, of course, stands to lose a lot more. In essence, his decision to forgive or demand repayment of a debt is a far weightier concern.

That's because you're thinking of the debt as something of monetary value. It's a parable, so the debt is used in place of the sins we have committed, either against God or against others.

Night Strike wrote:

Symmetry wrote:

Night Strike wrote:I actually think this may be the most straight-forward of the 4 parables you've posted, and of course it has nothing to do with economics. The meaning is actually in pretty plain language. The parable (in general) is used to convey a truth about the nature of God in a way that the people around Jesus would understand. One man begged forgiveness for a major debt that he owed to the king and the king forgave him. However, once his debts were forgiven, he went out and demanded payment of the small debt that someone else owed him. The debtor begged for forgiveness of that small debt, but the servant refused to forgive him. This parable teaches us that just as God forgives us of our massive sins against Him, so to are we supposed to forgive the minor sins that other people do against us.

I tied it into economics as that was how it was suggested to me based on the discussions in the previous thread. I really have no strong opinion on this one.

To add an element of trouble to the question though, one thing did kind of bother me. It's very easy for a king to waive a debt, or I guess, for God to forgive. He stands to lose very little in the case of the king, or nothing at all, in the case of God. The servant, of course, stands to lose a lot more. In essence, his decision to forgive or demand repayment of a debt is a far weightier concern.

That's because you're thinking of the debt as something of monetary value. It's a parable, so the debt is used in place of the sins we have committed, either against God or against others.

I kind of thought about that too. It's very easy for God to forgive a sin against Him. He has nothing to lose. He owes no debts higher up. It costs nothing. Forgiving a sin for us folks is more of a sacrifice. We have things to lose.

I don't have much to add to what was already posted. It is a pretty straight forward parable. However, if you want to tie in economics, maybe think about why usary was considered such a heavy sin for such a long time. (this is a bit of a stretch) A debt is something you owe another person. You did something for them, or perhaps hurt them in some way and therefore owe them a return. As noted, it can be forgiven because the person holding the debt essentially "holds the note". When there is a third party involved, all that changes. A person is gaining simply from being in a position to help the other repay their debt. They are, in a sense simply benefitting from the other's misfortune.

Now, before Nightstrike rants... today's economics are not so straightforward. People put up money not just from obligation, but to attempt to help someone else get ahead.. and then the idea is both will benefit.

I am rather tired, so I might not be making the best of sense right now.

Symmetry wrote:I kind of thought about that too. It's very easy for God to forgive a sin against Him. He has nothing to lose. He owes no debts higher up. It costs nothing. Forgiving a sin for us folks is more of a sacrifice. We have things to lose.

And you hit on a point discussed elsewhere in the Bible: we shouldn't be attached to our things (or even our own lives) because they will all be gone at some point anyway. It is much greater for us to demonstrate the forgiveness of Christ to other people than it is for us to withhold forgiveness simply because we're attached to the things around us. No one ever claimed that it was easy to forgive other people, but the sins others commit against us are nothing compared to the sins we ourselves have committed against God.

Night Strike wrote:

Symmetry wrote:I kind of thought about that too. It's very easy for God to forgive a sin against Him. He has nothing to lose. He owes no debts higher up. It costs nothing. Forgiving a sin for us folks is more of a sacrifice. We have things to lose.

And you hit on a point discussed elsewhere in the Bible: we shouldn't be attached to our things (or even our own lives) because they will all be gone at some point anyway. It is much greater for us to demonstrate the forgiveness of Christ to other people than it is for us to withhold forgiveness simply because we're attached to the things around us. No one ever claimed that it was easy to forgive other people, but the sins others commit against us are nothing compared to the sins we ourselves have committed against God.

I think you're getting to the heart of the parable by thinking about the forgiveness side. That seems to be the parable's strength. The debt side, and ability to forgive debt are kind of the weak points of the parable, to my mind at least.

Symmetry wrote:

Night Strike wrote:

Symmetry wrote:I kind of thought about that too. It's very easy for God to forgive a sin against Him. He has nothing to lose. He owes no debts higher up. It costs nothing. Forgiving a sin for us folks is more of a sacrifice. We have things to lose.

And you hit on a point discussed elsewhere in the Bible: we shouldn't be attached to our things (or even our own lives) because they will all be gone at some point anyway. It is much greater for us to demonstrate the forgiveness of Christ to other people than it is for us to withhold forgiveness simply because we're attached to the things around us. No one ever claimed that it was easy to forgive other people, but the sins others commit against us are nothing compared to the sins we ourselves have committed against God.

I think you're getting to the heart of the parable by thinking about the forgiveness side. That seems to be the parable's strength. The debt side, and ability to forgive debt are kind of the weak points of the parable, to my mind at least.

It's a weak point because the point doesn't actually exist. The "debt" was sin when Jesus shared the parable and it is still sin today. Putting it in terms of money was just a way to describe sin in a way that the hearers could related to. It was never meant to refer to actual monetary debts.

Night Strike wrote:

Symmetry wrote:

Night Strike wrote:

Symmetry wrote:I kind of thought about that too. It's very easy for God to forgive a sin against Him. He has nothing to lose. He owes no debts higher up. It costs nothing. Forgiving a sin for us folks is more of a sacrifice. We have things to lose.

And you hit on a point discussed elsewhere in the Bible: we shouldn't be attached to our things (or even our own lives) because they will all be gone at some point anyway. It is much greater for us to demonstrate the forgiveness of Christ to other people than it is for us to withhold forgiveness simply because we're attached to the things around us. No one ever claimed that it was easy to forgive other people, but the sins others commit against us are nothing compared to the sins we ourselves have committed against God.

I think you're getting to the heart of the parable by thinking about the forgiveness side. That seems to be the parable's strength. The debt side, and ability to forgive debt are kind of the weak points of the parable, to my mind at least.

It's a weak point because the point doesn't actually exist. The "debt" was sin when Jesus shared the parable and it is still sin today. Putting it in terms of money was just a way to describe sin in a way that the hearers could related to. It was never meant to refer to actual monetary debts.

Hmm, think we might have crossed wires on this. Even moral/ethical debts require nothing from God/King in terms of forgiveness, whereas servants/humans have to let something go. The parable suggests that the forgiveness of the king should be passed on down, but the king has nothing to lose, and the servant's place is not as secure as that of the king.

Symmetry wrote:Hmm, think we might have crossed wires on this. Even moral/ethical debts require nothing from God/King in terms of forgiveness, whereas servants/humans have to let something go. The parable suggests that the forgiveness of the king should be passed on down, but the king has nothing to lose, and the servant's place is not as secure as that of the king.

Sin is not trivial to God. It is a deliberate affront to his perfect righteousness and he has banished sinful people from his presence (hence the existence of Hell). God does not have to forgive us for the sins we have committed, and he would still be perfectly righteous if he didn't. Instead, he chose a way for us to be atoned for our sins because he still desired to have a relationship with the beings he created. And God does let something go for every person who has accepted Christ: the debt of death that each of us deserves and owes for being sinful.

Symmetry wrote:As always, I'll begin by saying that I'm an atheist. or agnostic, or whatever. Macbone suggested this as a good follow on from the previous parable threads, and I have to say that although it's one that I've read, I don't have a strong opinion about it.

The relevant verses are Matthew 18: 21-35

show

I guess, following the the arguments of previous threads, this parable might have some interesting aspects concerning forgiveness of debt and trickle down economics. Anyway- thoughts?

When did biblical interpretation become a hobby of yours Symm?

Night Strike wrote:

Symmetry wrote:I kind of thought about that too. It's very easy for God to forgive a sin against Him. He has nothing to lose. He owes no debts higher up. It costs nothing. Forgiving a sin for us folks is more of a sacrifice. We have things to lose.

And you hit on a point discussed elsewhere in the Bible: we shouldn't be attached to our things (or even our own lives) because they will all be gone at some point anyway. It is much greater for us to demonstrate the forgiveness of Christ to other people than it is for us to withhold forgiveness simply because we're attached to the things around us. No one ever claimed that it was easy to forgive other people, but the sins others commit against us are nothing compared to the sins we ourselves have committed against God.

In the long-run, we're all dead, amirite?

Phatscotty wrote:

Symmetry wrote:As always, I'll begin by saying that I'm an atheist. or agnostic, or whatever. Macbone suggested this as a good follow on from the previous parable threads, and I have to say that although it's one that I've read, I don't have a strong opinion about it.

The relevant verses are Matthew 18: 21-35

show

I guess, following the the arguments of previous threads, this parable might have some interesting aspects concerning forgiveness of debt and trickle down economics. Anyway- thoughts?

When did biblical interpretation become a hobby of yours Symm?

Not a hobby- it's a big part of what I do professionally. Mostly I look at theology in the 17th century, but I'm always interested in different takes in the modern day.

Symmetry wrote:

Phatscotty wrote:When did biblical interpretation become a hobby of yours Symm?

Not a hobby- it's a big part of what I do professionally. Mostly I look at theology in the 17th century, but I'm always interested in different takes in the modern day.

Btw, Sym, thanks for turning me on to John Owen. I haven't actually gotten hold of any of his works yet, but I've researched him a bit and he sounds like someone I'd like to read when I get the chance.

Symmetry - You keep mentioning that it cost nothing for God to forgive our debts.
John 3:16 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.

Jesus was crucified, ridiculed, and tortured for us. I would say it at least cost him something. This next parable is an example of the cost.

Wikipedia
The parable (from Matthew)

From the King James Bible, here is the parable as Matthew has written it :

There was a certain householder, which planted a vineyard, and hedged it round about, and digged a winepress in it, and built a tower, and let it out to husbandmen, and went into a far country: And when the time of the fruit drew near, he sent his servants to the husbandmen, that they might receive the fruits of it.

And the husbandmen took his servants, and beat one, and killed another, and stoned another. Again, he sent other servants more than the first: and they did unto them likewise.

But last of all he sent unto them his son, saying, They will reverence my son. But when the husbandmen saw the son, they said among themselves, This is the heir; come, let us kill him, and let us seize on his inheritance. And they caught him, and cast him out of the vineyard, and slew him.

When the lord therefore of the vineyard cometh, what will he do unto those husbandmen? They say unto him, He will miserably destroy those wicked men, and will let out his vineyard unto other husbandmen, which shall render him the fruits in their seasons. Jesus saith unto them, Did ye never read in the scriptures, The stone which the builders rejected, the same is become the head of the corner: this is the Lord's doing, and it is marvellous in our eyes?

Therefore say I unto you, The kingdom of God shall be taken from you, and given to a nation bringing forth the fruits thereof. And whosoever shall fall on this stone shall be broken: but on whomsoever it shall fall, it will grind him to powder.

And when the chief priests and Pharisees had heard his parables, they perceived that he spake of them. But when they sought to lay hands on him, they feared the multitude, because they took him for a prophet [1]

The huge disparity between OT's "an eye for an eye" and NT's "do unto others" hath always vexed me. Verily.
Treat them as separate works by different authors?! Hush thy mouth!

Anyway, I agree this parable speaks of forgiveness in that such is divine therefore when/what/who/which -ever we choose (big word) to forgive we raise ourselves slightly up out of the humdrum, if only Ezra an instant.

daddy1gringo wrote:

Symmetry wrote:

Phatscotty wrote:When did biblical interpretation become a hobby of yours Symm?

Not a hobby- it's a big part of what I do professionally. Mostly I look at theology in the 17th century, but I'm always interested in different takes in the modern day.

Btw, Sym, thanks for turning me on to John Owen. I haven't actually gotten hold of any of his works yet, but I've researched him a bit and he sounds like someone I'd like to read when I get the chance.

Glad to hear it. He's an excellent writer. A lot of his work is available online.