Why are these three parables grouped together in the Book of Mathew?

This copy and paste is from the New International Version. The King James Version does not break up these stories with the titles; they seem to run into each other.

Mathew 25

http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew%2025&version=NIV

The Parable of the Ten Virgins
1 “At that time the kingdom of heaven will be like ten virgins who took their lamps and went out to meet the bridegroom. 2 Five of them were foolish and five were wise. 3 The foolish ones took their lamps but did not take any oil with them. 4 The wise ones, however, took oil in jars along with their lamps. 5 The bridegroom was a long time in coming, and they all became drowsy and fell asleep.

6 “At midnight the cry rang out: ‘Here’s the bridegroom! Come out to meet him!’

7 “Then all the virgins woke up and trimmed their lamps. 8 The foolish ones said to the wise, ‘Give us some of your oil; our lamps are going out.’

9 “‘No,’ they replied, ‘there may not be enough for both us and you. Instead, go to those who sell oil and buy some for yourselves.’

10 “But while they were on their way to buy the oil, the bridegroom arrived. The virgins who were ready went in with him to the wedding banquet. And the door was shut.

11 “Later the others also came. ‘Lord, Lord,’ they said, ‘open the door for us!’

12 “But he replied, ‘Truly I tell you, I don’t know you.’

13 “Therefore keep watch, because you do not know the day or the hour.

The Parable of the Bags of Gold
14 “Again, it will be like a man going on a journey, who called his servants and entrusted his wealth to them. 15 To one he gave five bags of gold, to another two bags, and to another one bag, each according to his ability. Then he went on his journey. 16 The man who had received five bags of gold went at once and put his money to work and gained five bags more. 17 So also, the one with two bags of gold gained two more. 18 But the man who had received one bag went off, dug a hole in the ground and hid his master’s money.

19 “After a long time the master of those servants returned and settled accounts with them. 20 The man who had received five bags of gold brought the other five. ‘Master,’ he said, ‘you entrusted me with five bags of gold. See, I have gained five more.’

21 “His master replied, ‘Well done, good and faithful servant! You have been faithful with a few things; I will put you in charge of many things. Come and share your master’s happiness!’

22 “The man with two bags of gold also came. ‘Master,’ he said, ‘you entrusted me with two bags of gold; see, I have gained two more.’

23 “His master replied, ‘Well done, good and faithful servant! You have been faithful with a few things; I will put you in charge of many things. Come and share your master’s happiness!’

24 “Then the man who had received one bag of gold came. ‘Master,’ he said, ‘I knew that you are a hard man, harvesting where you have not sown and gathering where you have not scattered seed. 25 So I was afraid and went out and hid your gold in the ground. See, here is what belongs to you.’

26 “His master replied, ‘You wicked, lazy servant! So you knew that I harvest where I have not sown and gather where I have not scattered seed? 27 Well then, you should have put my money on deposit with the bankers, so that when I returned I would have received it back with interest.

28 “‘So take the bag of gold from him and give it to the one who has ten bags. 29 For whoever has will be given more, and they will have an abundance. Whoever does not have, even what they have will be taken from them. 30 And throw that worthless servant outside, into the darkness, where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth.’

The Sheep and the Goats
31 “When the Son of Man comes in his glory, and all the angels with him, he will sit on his glorious throne. 32 All the nations will be gathered before him, and he will separate the people one from another as a shepherd separates the sheep from the goats. 33 He will put the sheep on his right and the goats on his left.

34 “Then the King will say to those on his right, ‘Come, you who are blessed by my Father; take your inheritance, the kingdom prepared for you since the creation of the world. 35 For I was hungry and you gave me something to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me something to drink, I was a stranger and you invited me in, 36 I needed clothes and you clothed me, I was sick and you looked after me, I was in prison and you came to visit me.’

37 “Then the righteous will answer him, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry and feed you, or thirsty and give you something to drink? 38 When did we see you a stranger and invite you in, or needing clothes and clothe you? 39 When did we see you sick or in prison and go to visit you?’

40 “The King will reply, ‘Truly I tell you, whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers and sisters of mine, you did for me.’

41 “Then he will say to those on his left, ‘Depart from me, you who are cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels. 42 For I was hungry and you gave me nothing to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me nothing to drink, 43 I was a stranger and you did not invite me in, I needed clothes and you did not clothe me, I was sick and in prison and you did not look after me.’

44 “They also will answer, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry or thirsty or a stranger or needing clothes or sick or in prison, and did not help you?’

45 “He will reply, ‘Truly I tell you, whatever you did not do for one of the least of these, you did not do for me.’

46 “Then they will go away to eternal punishment, but the righteous to eternal life.”

Hehehe. ;)

As to your question, maybe it has something to do with possibility that there were multiple authors of many of the Bible's books, not just one singular author as is often presumed? Thus, the disjointedness and schizophrenic nature of many of the Bible's books, that seem to contradict themselves in many parts?

Reasonable discussion of this kind of topic are always welcome. Your post is not all that amusing.

Here you go, since its too late to edit my original post:

:sarcasm:

and what you do with that faith in god. Do you use it wisely or do you hide it or not even prepare to use it.

and ways that are not. It seem natural that they are grouped together. Each deals with a different type of behavior, under different circumstance, but encourages sensible behavior.

In the first, the proper behavior with money is to put it to work and to try to serve the one you work for with what is expected.

The second counsels planning when set to a task and demonstrates that those who do so are rewarded for their proper behavior.

The third demonstrates the reward when one follows the teachings of a spiritual leader.


All have to do with behavior under different circumstance, but in keeping with what is expected of you. Those who do what is expected will be rewarded. Those who do not, will not.

Jesus Christ never seemed to be concerned about making money.

relationship, and spoke of it more than once, telling servants to do their master's bidding. In this case, the wealthy person entrusted sums of money to his servants, expecting that they would do with it as he would do himself. Similarly, Jesus had expectations for his followers and for people in general. Hence the parable regarding loyalty and good service.

Jesus was a man of his times, and his times involved master/servant relationships. He said nothing about ending such relationships.

Please excuse my use of the highly technical and pretentious term, "thingy."

what you meant. :rofl:

...deal with what can be best described as "Kingdom responsibilities".

The first two are describing the Kingdom (v.1, v.14), and the characters in the story represent us, essentially.

The 1st parable is about living the Kingdom, with the lit lamp a reference to the Messianic scriptures, mostly Isaiah, where the Messiah is the light. It's a call to live in the light always in preparation for the Messiah's return. There's some heavy eschatological references here.

The 2nd parable is about our Kingdom responsibilities. The translation to "bags of Gold" really do a disservice to the rhetorical flourish of this parable. The amount given to each servant is a talent, or approximately 20 years wages. Each servant (again, us) has been given/blessed with talents. This parable asks, what are you doing with yours? Are you living Kingdom principles? (Remember, Jesus said the Kingdom was 'at hand', a highly politically charged statement at the time) Are you making the best with what you have, even if you may not have as much as your neighbor? Or is your bitterness about not having as much causing you to hide it and hoard it? Contrary to Western Christian interpretations, this parable is not solely about managing your finances. It's about what you do with your whole life.

The 3rd parable - The sheep and the goats, is about the judgment of nations. Another bit of symbolism here is that sheep liked to roam and need space, while goats huddle together. One can infer that the sheep are those who wandered the fields (kingdom) doing the will of God, boiled down to "love your neighbor". The goats stuck together in their safe 'religious circles' and didn't roam the kingdom serving their neighbor.

The difference that is often overlooked is the difference in temperament between sheep and goats. Sheep are gentle and submit to the authority of the Shepherd (Jesus). Goats, however, are stubborn, headstrong, and typically resistant to authority.

All three put together are eschatological in nature. Live the light always, make the most of what your blessings, and in doing so, if you listen to and heed God's will (the great Commandment), you will be serving him by serving your fellow man (brothers and sisters). Those 3 are the keys to eternal life.

I don't subscribe to the Dante-ish view of Hell that Western Christianity espouses. The Greek word used in v.46 is kolasis, which can also be defined as 'correction'. But then once you take that view, that "Hell" is an place of eternal correction, it limits the eternal to the place, and not the person. Fire is often used in both OT and NT as a purifying element, not an instrument of torture..... but the topic of Hell is one for another day.

...as to how to live the Kingdom here, or "at hand".

Jesus spoke more often about bringing the Kingdom, and Kingdom 'values' so to speak, to Earth more than punching a one way ticket to Heaven.

That's why, in the only passage where Jesus teaches his followers to pray, he talks about God's will being done on Earth, as it is in Heaven.

Too often Christians live looking to punch their ticket by checking things off the cosmic scorecard. IMO, and in the opinion of many, many, theologians and scholars wiser than me, that sort of thinking misses the entire point.

It's not about what happens later, it's about how you live now.

1) "Truly I tell you, I don’t know you."
2) "And throw that worthless servant outside, into the darkness, where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth."
3) "Then they will go away to eternal punishment, but the righteous to eternal life."

Each of these quotes is incompatible with your preferred interpretation, that by taking one word and coming up with an alternative definition, you are somehow transforming eternal punishment to a place that is set up to "correct" people but that isn't eternal for the person involved. (BTW, the "correction" in your preferred definition of kolasis implies a correction as part of a punishment - still not a nice thing. Why would your god need to punish at all?)

Why would Jesus not know someone who merely needs some "correction?" Why would there be "darkness" and "weeping and gnashing of teeth" where someone is simply learning correct behavior? Why would Jesus make such a stark distinction between those who need "correction" and those who are "righteous" and have earned eternal life? Do the people who get "corrected" not inherit eternal life then?

One last question: you and I both know that no human is perfect. So what is the cutoff for "righteous?" With Jesus, this is a binary thing. If you are bad, you get eternal punishment ("correction"). If you're righteous, eternal life.

You took one verse, stripped it of its context, and said "Hey... this one verse completely disproves your interpretation!"

You just did what you rail against fundamentalists for, taking a single verse to support their agenda.

That's called eisegesis.

Second, I didn't "come up with" an alternate definition of kolasis. "Correction" is an accepted definition from the Koine Greek.

I would suggest researching the 1st Century Judaic symbolism of the afterlife, the actual history of Gehenna and the Valley of Hinnom, and how the constant fire that burned there plays into the symbolism Jesus used about the afterlife.

Third, the Greek word αἰώνιος, which we understand as eternal, had significantly different meaning to the population of 1st Century Jerusalem, particularly when used in conjunction with blessings and correction/punishment. The Western translation of κόλασιν αἰώνιον to simply mean eternal punishment is, in the views of many scholars, quite simplistic and lazy.

Finally, I have no idea what the binary cutoff is....if there even is one. However, one can read scripture, to understand what is asked of Humanity.

Over and over, love is the fulfillment of the law.

Your preferred interpretation takes those verses and concludes that they aren't meant to be taken literally because they don't fit the conclusion, while the verses that do fit are taken at face value.

You claim to be a professional scientist; is it your practice to reject data that don't fit your hypothesis, or do you perhaps see contradictory data as an indication that the hypothesis may be flawed? I imagine that if you're as successful as you claim you do the latter rather than the former. If that's the case (that is, you're not an enormous fraud), why do you a completely contrary method to theology?

(BTW, I'm still waiting to see your response to a question Jim_ asked you back in October of '09. He asked you a legitimate question, the answer of which I was curious about. So if you're not too busy, I'd love to hear your thoughts.)

This entire discourse is metaphor. That's not my 'preferred interpretation', whatever the hell that backhanded phrase means, but it's stated in v.1 and v.14. It's also rich in eschatological imagery.

In fact, that's the whole point of parables...to explain things using rich symbolic imagery that the audience would understand.

A talent, from the second part, is an obscene amount of money. It's about 20 years worth of wages. Would you concede that using that particular phrase might have been understood differently to a 1st Century Jew under Roman occupation than a megachurch preacher from Texas in 2011?

Do you think that perhaps the symbolism and imagery of sheep and goats might have been deeper, richer, more powerful to a 1st Century agrarian Jewish society than to some televangelist?

One cannot honestly apply scripture to modern times without first understanding the context in which it came from. The language, the symbolism, the imagery, the political climate, the sociological climate...that's the backstory.

If one can't grasp those basics, then any meaningful conversation is near impossible.

On your point about conflicting data, your view is quite simplistic.

I've been a chemist for going on 20 years now. If I rejected hypotheses based on one or two data points, I wouldn't have lasted this long.

When someone in my profession gets conflicting data, we look at it individually and in its larger context.

Is it an anomaly?
Is it out of family or in family?
Is it repeatable?
Was the analysis done correctly?
Was the instrumentation calibrated?
Were the tools clean and free from contamination?
Was it expected or unexpected?
Can the result be turned on and off?

These and many more questions arise when conflicting data is received.

So, really, I, and many other theologians and scholars, don't take a completely contrary method to theology.

Looking simply at the surface, which is what those focused on literalism do, makes one a lousy theologian and a lousy scientist.

I believe I've answered Jim's question, but since I don't remember a singlular question from 18+ months ago, feel free to refresh my memory as to what he asked.

Interesting how you insist that something that is entirely metaphorical has a right interpretation. It's especially interesting considering how parables aren't metaphor but analogy. Don't believe me, look up the etymology in a dictionary. (Hint: it comes from Greek.)

Since parables are analogies, everything within must be directly comparable. What is "wailing and gnashing of teeth" analogous to? You can't just toss it out because it gets in the way of your metaphorical interpretation of an analogy.

As far as Jim_'s question, it was about your low-hanging fruit dismissal of discussing the morality of genetic manipulation. You said, "There's a difference between targeted gene therapy to treat disease and using it to make designer babies who play piano like Mozart." His response to you was "Who gets to draw the line? The parents? The state? You? These questions should definitely be asked. These issues should definitely be discussed. Dawkins is right to raise the issue." That was in September of '09.

In case you don't remember that thread, it was the one where you posted a three-year old, already debunked quote-mine that was made to look like Richard Dawkins was advocating Nazi-style eugenics.

You've also never answered a question I had about whether the biographical verses in the Gospels are literal or metaphorical, and if literal, which Gospel is the right one (they do contradict if taken literally), why, and how you know.

1) It's metaphorical in describing what the Kingdom is. It's not really 10 women with oil lamps, nor is it a dude who gives his servants money. Oh, and the nations won't really be turned into sheep and goats, just so you know.

2) Thanks for the Greek lesson, μεταφέρω, a compound word derived from μετα and φέρω.

3) Not everything has to relate.

4) The word gnash appears at least 9 times in scripture.

5) Wailing indicates regret while gnashing indicates anger. Gnashing is about "people who are so angry that they grind their teeth at others". See Acts 7:53-55, where the leaders gnashed their teeth at Stephen when he they stoned him.

6) If one cannot differentiate the difference between treating diseases, particular genetic diseases (MS, CP, etc) and breeding for piano players, then they have no business in discussions about eugenics.

7) Even if you take Hitler out of the discussion, there is no ethical reason for the type of eugenics Dawkins discusses "I wonder whether, some 60 years after Hitler's death, we might at least venture to ask what the moral difference is between breeding for musical ability and forcing a child to take music lessons. Or why it is acceptable to train fast runners and high jumpers but not to breed them." The reasons are simple:
a) You don't give the child a choice about how they want to grow up.
b) We used to do that in the US, it was called things like:forced sterilization of undesirables, killing off slaves who could read, etc.
c) GMO has been so successful, one can only imagine how wonderful it would be if we started making GMH or 'designer babies'.

8) The genealogies are a common argument skeptics use to say the Bible is contradiction. If one is simply reading literally, then, yeah, that'd be true....but it's not.

Matthew's lineage establishes Jesus as the rightful heir to David's throne through Joseph's line. It was never intended to be a complete lineage, as it's set up in 3 groups of 14, the patriarchs, the kings, and then regular citizens, establishing that the King of the Jews would come from a humble birth.

Luke's lineage is to establish Jesus as the Son of Man, through the Maternal line, by going back to Adam.


Was that simple and straight-forward enough for you?

1) You obviously don't understand what an analogy is, or how it's different from a metaphor. A parable is comparison--an analogy. Each of the parables in this case begin with a simile that makes it obvious to even the thickest reader that it isn't meant to be literal.

-The analogy of the first one quite plain--only the faithful will be recognized by God.
-The second one is also pretty straightforward--make the most of what God has given you.
-The third also states quite plainly that salvation comes through works, namely good deeds.

Each also contains a form of punishment, be it estrangement or outright suffering. The parables aren't just a guide of how to live but an ultimatum--do this or suffer the consequences. This is at odds with your preferred interpretation that it's all about love and candy sprinkles.

2) You also missed the point of the "Greek lesson." It wasn't a Greek lesson, but an English lesson--Parables are analogy, not metaphor.

3) If parables were metaphor, you'd be right, but since they're analogy, you're wrong. A metaphor is an abstract comparison whereas an analogy is a direct one and an analogy doesn't work if whole parts don't relate to anything.

4, 5) These have no bearing on the fact that your preferred interpretation is inconsistent with what is written in Scripture.

6, 7) You're still dodging the question of where the line should be drawn and who should make that decision. Picking opposite extremes doesn't cut it. You might as well try to avoid defining a poverty line because there's an obvious difference between an income of $500 per year and an income of $5 million. The discussion Dawkins describes isn't the quote-mined straw man about eugenics that you posted, but the details about where the line should be drawn, how broad or narrow the line should be, etc.

As the study of the genome increases our understanding, it's conceivable that several more little steps beyond treating disease will become available. Is it wrong to choose the child's sex? Eye color? Handedness? Hair color? Hair type? Tooth alignment? Eye shape? Whether they can roll their tongue?

There's a difference between any of those and "breeding for piano players." The question is more complex than your simple analogy and disgust over extreme cases is no reason not to have the discussion.

8) You've also dodged my question. Are the biographical parts of the Gospels literal? For example, did Jesus exist? Who were his parents? Where was he born and when? Where did he live? What did he do? Was he executed and when? What happened to the body and when? The Gospels aren't consistent on these questions, and if the biographical parts are meant to be literal, that's a problem.

For example, how can Jesus be in David's line if his father was God through the Holy Spirit? Conversely, how can Jesus be the Son of God if both his parents were human? He can't be paternally related to David and be the Son of God.

...and I was more than willing to engage you in discussion.

You asked theological questions, I gave a theologian's answers, and they weren't good enough for you.

The point about "breeding piano players", well, those are paraphrasing Dawkins' own words. It's an asinine argument because the question is, rather than what _Jim asked, is "Who decides what the most desirable traits are?"

If you're going to insinuate that I am a moron without a working brain, then there's really no point in continuing.

The demand to know what's literal and what's metaphorical is a strawman, at best. As I've said over and over, that sort of demand misses the entire point of scripture.

Now, this is NOT a "be deferential to my beliefs or I'll go" thing. Like I've said a million times.. I could give two shits what you believe or don't believe.

This is an "It's wiser to shake the dust from my sandals thing".

As far as genetic manipulation, who decides where the line should be drawn? How definite is that line? Stop evading the question by giving obviously ethical and unethical examples. The questions Dawkins raise are important ones and seeing how you brought up the issue (albeit as a quote-mined straw man), you should be willing to offer some answers.

Is asking you to support a claim is a straw man? I don't think so. You insist that scripture isn't completely literal; that many parts are metaphorical. Asking you to state which are which and why isn't a straw man, it's asking you to back up what you claim to know. Seeing how you take parts of the Bible literally and claim to have spent considerable effort studying Scripture, it shouldn't be too hard to at least give examples of parts that are literal, parts that aren't, and how you discern between the two.

And since you seem to want to dodge this question, what IS the "entire point of scripture" as you see it? How does that "entire point" negate the question of whether a passage should be taken at face value or if there's a deeper meaning?

I don't think you have any answers here. Prove me wrong.

...genetic diseases (Down's, sickle cell, Tay-Sachs) and breeding for traits, then that one is a fucking moron and there's no need to continue the discussion.

Never mind the fact that parents can already choose the sex of their child, there is a wide spectrum of possibilities between the two options

As new possibilities beyond treating disease will become available, what then? Is it wrong to choose the child's sex? Eye color? Handedness? Hair color? Hair type? Tooth alignment? Eye shape? Color blindness? Eyelid structure? Earwax quality? Whether they can roll their tongue? Whether they can taste phenylthiocarbimide? Can smell hydrogen cyanide? What about cleft chins? Attached earlobes? Widow's peak? Hitchhiker's thumb? Freckles on their face? How about blood type? Photic sneeze reflex?

At what point is it too much? When does it cross the line? Is there an actual line or just a broad division between extremes? Does intent matter? Who gets to decide?

Who's trying to trick whom?

You yourself took a SINGLE WORD, chose a different definition for it, and then reinterpreted a passage to say what you'd rather it said. A SINGLE WORD - after bashing me for supposedly taking a single phrase. That's pretty rich.

Now if you care to actually answer any of my questions rather than punting, I'd love to hear from you.

The proverb exists now, but I don't know whether or not it
existed when Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John were alive.

The proverb is:
There is no good action that is too small to be worth doing.

That's perhaps not an exact transcription of any existing proverb,
but the idea has been expressed in proverb form, and the proverb
that I have in mind (but perhaps didn't quote exactly) is today
a contemporary proverb.

The first parable is about timing. Exact timing can be important.
For example, it can make for the difference between dying in a
traffic accident and escaping completely unharmed. If you don't
stay alive, then there's not much good you can do for anybody.
A difference of a few seconds, minutes, or hours might seem
very small in the big picture, but in the first parable it makes
all the difference.

The second parable seems to be a poor translation. The ratio of
gold available to the three servants is five to two to one,
but I think that in other translations the third servant was
entrusted with far less than a fifth of what the first servant
was entrusted with. The third servant has little to work with,
a small amount of resources with which to do good, but he makes
a great mistake in doing nothing when he could have done something
positive with what was available.

The third parable calls for one to do something as small as
giving somebody something to drink, or visiting somebody in
prison. Again, the good that could be done is small, but
refraining from doing that good makes a big difference in
how the individual is judged.

That is a good proverb. I like it. Using a forth proverb to interpret the other three is fun.

1. Even the Lord God can't fix stupid.
2. The Lord God thinks breaking even is a loss.
3. The Lord God fucks goats.

...he said "The bridegroom was a long time in coming" :)

And it's good to be in charge, so you can decide who gets praised and who gets thrown out into the streets or into the lake of fire.

grouped together in Q.