Interpretation of Matthew 25:14-30

[Type the document subtitle]

Bates

4/20/2009

This document contains Biblical interpretation from Ancient, Reformation, and Modern periods. The goal of interpretation to be to find the meaning[s] within a text of scripture for application unto existence, in addition to study in the academy. The considered text is “The Parable of the Talents”.

Bates 2

Interpretation through the ages on Matthew 25:14-30

Understand and application of Scripture has shaped the interpretation of the Bible, from

the first century through early-twentieth century, the Bible acquires new meaning and greater

challenge. Philosophy, History, language, and human-rationale create revisions and new thought

of scripture, as it applies to the economy of Scripture. Considering the interpretive methods, a

parable is a metaphor of future events or to apply moral importance to a situation. Jesus spoke in

parables to create a literal or allegorical meaning of theology. The text of “The parable of the

Talents” is a direct reference to the “Kingdom of Heaven”, which points to the time between the

first and second-coming of Christ. The parable demonstrates the importance of stewardship in

anticipation of Christ’s return.

“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. 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. Then he who had received the five talents went and traded with them, and made another five talents. And likewise he who had received two gained two more also. But he who had received one went and dug in the ground, and hid his lord’s money. After a long time the lord of those servants came and settled accounts with them. “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.’ 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.’ 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.’ 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.’ “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. And I was afraid, and went and hid your talent in the ground. Look, there you have what is yours.’ “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. 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 So take the talent from him, and give it to him who has ten talents. ‘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 cast the unprofitable servant into the outer darkness. There will be weeping and gnashing of teeth.” -Matthew 25:14-30

Bates 3

John Chrysostom (347-407 AD) was not only an interpreter of the Gospel, but a deacon and

Priest at Antioch and a Patriarch at Constantinople. Chrysostom was a great orator and prolific

exegete in the early Church. After receiving a traditional education, he began the work of Bible

commentator and preacher. He was a student of Diodore of Tarsus, through his teaching;

Chrysostom sought after a textual and historical extraction of Scripture for greater contemporary

expression. His greatest work was over the Pauline letters, more specifically the role of women

in the Church and the faith of Christ (McKim 28-34).

Gregory the Great (540-604 AD) was also considered one of the greatest Popes (590-

604). We have considered one of the last four Church Fathers; Ambrose, Jerome, Augustine and

Gregory the Great. Living during the fourth century, when intellect and spirituality thrived. He

wrote Old Testament commentaries, particularly job and Ezekiel. He approached the Bible with

a strong approach of Allegorical interpretation. He took a few books of the Bible into great

consideration, exegete from the historical literal context, then extracting the greater moral and

practical significance (McKim 99-105).

Origen (185-253 AD) was a product of the philosophy and religious interpretation of the

Jewish region of Alexandria. He was classically taught, and became a teacher of grammar. Upon

further study, he combated Gnosticism with neo-Platonist apologetic doctrines, working to keep

the whole Biblical canon and preserve the Church’s rule of faith. He used the Christian method

of exegesis from the Bible itself, and non-Christian allegorical interpretation. Jerome explains

the great number of Origen’s writings grouped in Devotionals (Scholia), Biblical commentaries

and homilies. (McKim 52-60).

Bates 4

Gregory the Great clarifies this parable, he speaks of the expectations for the Kingdom of

Heaven and Christ’s ascension to heaven, and the divine nature in his ‘long journey’. This master

is said to be our redeemer (Christ), who would be transported to foreign land to establish heaven.

His role of a master, who is leaving on a long journey, as Christ would leave us from the first

coming. It says the master called upon his servants to take care of each a sum of talents that are

regarded as Spiritual gifts, according to his abilities to use that gift. The master’s words were

spoken as they are silver refined seven times, He is an honorable master.

Chrysostom said, after a long time, said to be the time between the first and second

coming of Christ. The master’s return from his long journey represents the second coming of

Christ. The master’s return is unexpected and those he gave talents, the servants were to have a

profit for the master on the sum each servant received. Origen states, the master clearly expects

his servant to generate a profit of what he was given. Gregory the great tell of the servants as you

and I, the followers of Christ who are to keep his commands, ‘love the Lord your God with all

your heart and love your neighbor as yourself’. The profit we are to make with the talents

represents the Spiritual gifts given and our use of those gifts, will eventually weigh on a gain for

the servant and those around him. There are some who use the gifts and gain from them, and one

who does not, he is a slothful servant. The greatest agitation of the master is the slothful

servant’s disinterest with his master’s work. Those who gained capitalized on his ability, he is a

wise man. Nevertheless, the servant with one talent was absorbed with fear and laziness, he was

said to have buried Christ in the earth, considering the talent as Christ. The lazy servant burying

the talent signifies his concern for earthy affairs, instead of spiritual matters. Origen and

Chrysostom tell of the servants of the two and five talents, the master said to them, “well done

good and faithful servant, you have been faithful over little, I will set you over much, enter into

Bates 5

the joy of your master”. He meant that they are to enter into blessedness. The master also replied

to the servant who buried his talent, “You wicked and slothful servant”. There is a spiritual

difference between the profitable servants and slothful servant. The servants who brought profit

to the master, they will reap the benefit of eternal joy of heavenly dwelling; there they will come

into the full joy of the master (Simonetti 222-25).

Gregory the great interprets the slothful servant saying, he acknowledges his master “reaps what

he does not sow, and gathers where he does not harvest”. We see the righteous servant sows to

the spirit and reaps eternal life. And righteous servant belongs to God, who reaps and gives to

the righteous and poor. The slothful servant will search for what he has not sown and will come

up short. This servant is an example of fear to only consider idleness, and feel no fear to his

wickedness. The servant’s one talent was taken from him and given to the servant with ten

talents. The master said to the slothful servant, who neglects to serve his master with profit,

“Depart from me into everlasting fire” (Simonetti 226).

As a parable in the gospels, we can assume it holds a context of literal, historical

and, somewhat allegorical text. Explaining the meaning of each of these factors well, points

toward the furthering of the kingdom of Heaven on earth. In terms of literal context, a sum of

money was given to a few hired workers at the departure of a certain wealthy man and the means

to increase that sum of money. The hired workers are given various increments, to one five

talents, another two and one talent. The least value for a talent is worth several thousand denarii,

as spoke about in the Gospel of Luke. And a single talent was equivalent to the wage of an

ordinary worker for fifteen years. At that man’s return, he expects a return of his sum of money.

When the man receives no return from one worker, he condemns this person and gives away his

money to those who brought an increase. The moral look at this parable takes us to view of

Bates 6

obedience to those in authority. The master left the workers with what they need to produce a

return; however it seems that one servant feared the risks associated with the investment, he

failed. Those who ignore authority are destroyed, like the slothful worker (Simonetti 227).

The parables hold significance in the New Testament, as the stories of the Old Testament

point to the coming Messiah. The parable apart from its literal meaning, it holds a "symbol" of

the Messianic advent in itself, according to the Midrash, which points toward the coming

Kingdom of Heaven. Through parables, Jesus seems to exegete the Old Testament, which also

metaphorically explained the coming of the Messiah. The Kingdom of God was at hand and

through parables Jesus explained the law which Judaism denied a coming Messiah or Jesus’ role

as the Messiah. The explanation of Jesus in parable was most often used in reference to the law

and God’s plan to abolish the law. It is believed that the allegorical method (literal, moral,

Analogical) has been used to interpret this text. Now suppose in a figural sense, the Master is

Christ, the workers are the Church (body of Believers) and the talents are gifts of the Spirit we

are to use and spread to others (Simonetti 228).

A clear historical context is present, unknown to the post-modern cultural where history

seems to be less important. Jewish culture is one of was chosen my God and the law of these

people was given through Moses. The law fulfillment hinged upon the coming of the Messiah,

who was to abolish the law and its penalty. Popular Jewish belief was that Jesus was not the

Messiah and many believe Jesus was only a man. Jesus described the Kingdom of Heaven using

the perspective of Jewish society at that time. The simple meaning of the parables was lost later

in history, and they were taken to be mysteries, especially when they alluded to the Messianic

expectations. They assumed the end of the kingdom of Satan, when the parables spoke of the

Messiah. The end of the kingdom of Satan stands for the stronghold of the Jewish Law which left

Bates 7

the remainder of the world as pagans.

“These things all taken together Jesus said to the crowds in parables; indeed, without a

parable He said nothing to them. This was in fulfillment of what was spoken by the prophet: I

will open my mouth in parables; I will utter things that have been hidden since the foundation of

the world.” - Matt. 13:34-35 (Bible 22)

Ancient Biblical interpretation is a base for the emerging Christian movement of the first

and second century which sparked a desire for greater understanding of the law and prophets.

The explanation behind the ancient interpretation was the historical background, being busy

doing the lord’s work until he returned was understood of working people. Centuries later, there

came a rise of Medieval and Reformation interpretation of Scripture. The monastic movement

struck after the fall of Rome, people grew wise to the benefit of interpreting the Scriptures.

Literary devices, grammatical consistencies, and the most original text of the Bible was sought to

unearth the possibilities of meaning in the text; this interpretive method lead throughout the

Reformation.

John Calvin (1506-1564) is noted as one of the greatest Christian theologians and

reformer of the protestant church. He was struck by interest in the study of law in the Old

Testament; He favored the linguistic and literary features of the text, the humanist form of

interpretation. He lived in Geneva, Switzerland for much of his life as a protestant reformer.

Calvin saw that scripture was divinely ‘dictated by the Holy Spirit’ and yet a human book.

Throughout the Bible, he finds stylistic literary variations within texts, an attribution of human

authors. He believed that Old and New Testaments had their differences, however both point to

Christ, believing contrary to Jewish interpretation.

Bates 8

Matthew Henry (1662-1714) was an English-speaking, non-conformist protestant

interpreter of the Bible. He wrote a six volume commentary from a historical and theological

study. Henry was taught languages and humanism to interpret and preach the Bible. He

experienced the time of persecution in England, when the state church was the Anglican Church,

which resembled Catholicism. Interpretation was based upon humanism, grammar and historical

exegesis, he expounding on literary similes and metaphors in the text. Scripture by Scripture

interpretation illuminates passages with parallel passages. This is a classic scripture

interpretation of the Protestant Reformers.

John Wesley (1703-1791) was a Lincoln College (Oxford) graduate, and Priest of the

Anglican Church, and one of the leaders of the revival of Great Britain. His goals were to reform

the English Church, creating Methodist and Wesleyan societies, like the ‘Oxford Holy Club’. In

a time of low morality, Wesley preached purity and justification/sanctification through Christ.

His rules for interpretation were as follows: express Scripture in its context, use the literal sense

unless it contradicts, Scripture interprets Scripture, know that all commands are covered by

promises, interpret literary devices, and use the most original text possible. He stresses that

God’s way of salvation is available to all mankind. The middle ages gave the new light of

humanism to the text. Reformation sheds a greater emphasis on Biblical study and interpretation.

Here exists a period of studying the Bible for the sake of literacy and to search the mystifying

value of the Scriptures.

Matthew Henry implies there is a state of business and the master has some expectancy

from his investment. This sort of investment requires diligence and habitual preparation in its

work and service. The master is Christ, who is the absolute owner and proprietor over all; by him

all things are delivered. Secondly, there are servants which find all things they require in their

Bates 9

master. Our receiving from Christ is in our functioning servant-hood to Him. “We are tenants

upon his land, stewards of his manifold grace” -1Peter 4:10. As the master leaves for the far

country, he gave gifts to men [Eph. 3:8], for the purpose of being away for a great while. Then,

Henry says, Christ furnishes us his Church with truths, laws, promises, and powers. The gift the

master gives is the Holy Spirit to enable his servants. This ability is determined by Divine

Providence, evaluating men’s abilities to mind, body, estate, relation, and interest (Henry 4).

The Christ intended to show his royal authority, because of the Kingdom, not yet in

Jerusalem; the Disciples then understood the Kingdom in Jerusalem was to come, not an

immediate prosperous Kingdom. During the time the Lord is to return, there is to be much

hardship for what is long awaited. Calvin goes on to say, there exists foretelling in the text,

hinting the ‘long journey’ is between the time of the death and the second-coming of Christ,

[Philippians 2:10]. John Calvin explains how Christ does not distinguish between natural gifts

and the gifts of the Spirit, simply for the fact that we cannot boast in our power or skill. The

power and skill we naturally possess should be acknowledged as being received from God.

Whoever is determined to give God his share and leaves nothing for himself. He expounds that

the Lord of his house gives to each freely according to each his ability in stewardship. God has

assigned everyone his place and has bestowed upon each natural gifts [talents], which he

employs command over his affairs, equips him with rich means of usefulness, and presents him

with opportunity (Calvin 440).

Calvin rants about the Papal doctrines inferences. He explains, doctrine concludes that the gifts

of God are given to the measure in which each deserves. He illuminates how the old translators

used the word ‘virtues’ and it is understood wrongly. ‘Virtue’ implies the validity of man’s

person justified qualities and praises of his own personal virtue. The man’s own virtue then goes

Bates 10

unto the Lord’s house to be judged as suitable. However we should understand that no man is

suitable until God has appointed unto him, only God gives ability and power (Calvin 440).

The master returns and is ready to judge (1 Peter 4:5), taking an account of the faithful servants.

The master tells of the honor he places upon us, giving of ourselves, the master is thankful of our

servitude in creating return for him. He says to them “Well done good and faithful servant”.

Praising their efforts, the master expresses thankfulness to each saying, “Thou hast been faithful

over a few things, I will make thee ruler over many things” and “Enter thou into the joy of the

Lord”. Then the slothful servant is called into account and does not have an account for what he

had received. The master requires no more of him than what could be expected. The slothful

servant’s ill affection toward God and his false notions leave him nothing more than unworthy of

God. He ignored the love in which Great Commandment requires, he finds no purpose to

religion, and is speechless and condemned at his plea. Two of the servants improve on their

talents, soon after the master left; they each traded in goods and made a return upon what was

entrusted to each of them. Henry thinks a Christian is a Spiritual salesmen; trading the mystery

of godliness for greater wisdom. This trade is an endowment of the mind under servanthood to

enrich others with wit, learning, and reason. Yet, the enjoyments of the world are estate, credit,

interest, power, and preferment which have to be set aside for the honor of Christ. Honoring

Christ in diligence makes the servant rich in graces, comforts and good works (Henry 5).

He who received one talent, perceives the master as a hard man, and yet does not know

the master. Wesley compares this to making assumptions of God and not knowing God. He who

received one talent believes the master ‘reaps where he does not sow’. He is presenting the

notion that his effort requires more than he was given the power to perform. Wesley contrasts

this notion, that every sinner will place the blame of his sin upon God, because he does not know

Bates 11

the attributes of God (Wesley 119).

The servant who received one talent went and hid his lord’s money in the ground.

Without being stolen, misspent, misemploy, embezzle, or squander away, he hid it. Henry speaks

of another man saying, ‘money is like manure’, it is good for nothing in a heap, and it must be

spread. It does good for no man, as for Spiritual gifts, many have and yet makes no use of them.

There should not be works in their ability, because they neglect the opportunity which we are

called; the slothful servants that seek their own activities greater than Christ (Henry 5). “And I

was afraid”, said the servant. If he had improved his talent, he would have nothing to be

accountable, yet from fear, he did nothing. Then the servant claims the impossibility of

accomplishing the task (Wesley). The sinners supposes the master is a hard man who expects

more than is required, their ignorance leads them to laziness. For his reason Henry says, “If not

for love, yet for fear ought he not have minded thy work?” Then the slothful servant’s one talent

is stripped from him, he is good for nothing, like a barren tree in a vineyard, an unprofitable

servant. (Henry 6). John Wesley recognized that on which many build their salvation,

harmlessness, is the cause of damnation. The master sentences him to outer darkness, where

there is weeping, great sorrow and gnashing of teeth, in other words, he is damned to hell. This

will be the portion of the slothful servant. The carelessness of the thoughtless sinner is shows

there is no such thing as a negative good (Wesley 120). A sum or talent was given to each

servant, implications warned the servants not partake of idleness, considering the extent Christ

goes for his people. Yet, each servant may share in trading to gain return on the Lord’s property.

The servants who were given the five and ten talents, they traded, which is compared of the

Godly man, who should promote mutual interaction with one another (Calvin 441)

Bates 12

Humanism has no end in languages of Greek or Hebrew itself but its lexical and

grammatical consistencies explain the texts ‘possibilities’ of meaning (McKim 175). Calvin

believed the meanings of many terms in the parables should not be taken literally, but

figuratively and in its historical context. Wesley considers this parable plain and understandable

text of scripture which he, again, further simplifies the parable. He interprets Matthew’s coming

of Christ, and man’s way of working toward the return of Christ (Wesley 120). Humanism used

as Biblical interpretation is interrelationship of theology, history and philosophy. Interpretation is

the interpreter’s intellect to create from the original historical texts, making them modern ideas,

which can better understood. Biblical interpreters are delivering classic texts of Scripture onto

paper with more understanding from history and grammatical variations from the original texts

of Latin and Greek. This form of understanding is resuscitation from the antique culture, by way

of modern man’s positive and creative abilities. Ironically, humanism was derived from the

contrary liberal “Free-thinkers” and complete secularism. However, Calvin and Zwingli were

outstanding humanists of Christian tradition. They and others benefitted Church tradition

throughout the Reformation era, their scholasticism and wisdom of the text creates the

background for their intent (Spinka). Wesley sums up the humanist interpretation in a few steps:

[Express Scripture in its context, use the literal sense (unless it contradicts), Scripture interprets

Scripture, know that all commands are covered by promises, interpret literary devices, and use

the most original text possible (Wesley 120).

Medieval and Reformation eras of interpretation shaped Europe and brought rise to

religious freedoms. Medieval interpretation was attempted by disciplined monastic movements.

However, the Reformation movement offended the practices of the Catholic Church. Reformed

interpretation separated groups of people for their religious freedoms. The sciences emerge and

Bates 13

man finds himself believing Scripture requires proof in reason. Modern interpretation is based

solely upon liberal-rationalism, not Church doctrine. Yet, a few men have held true to Biblical

theology, interpreting with moral consideration and meaning, rather than rational historical

criticism.

Rudolf Bultmann (1884-1976) was the son of a Lutheran pastor and one of the major

New Testament scholars and theologians of the 20th century. Bultmann was born in Oldenburg,

Germany. His studies began at the universities of Tubingen, Berlin and Marburg; his teachers

were many modern era Bible scholars, including: Harnack, Herman, Gunkel, Julius WM. Kaftan,

Johannes, Weiss and Wilhelm Herman. His career remained in the academy from 1921- 1971,

also holding a chair at Marburg. Bultmann’s writings were inconsistent with the modern ‘liberal

theology’. His greatest influence was a existential philosopher, Martin Heidegger. Bultmann is

famous for his “de-mythologizing” theology. History and rationalism came up empty when

without proof enough that Jesus ever lived. However, with philosophy, he understand the life in

the effects of Jesus were greater than the figure of Jesus. This method called ‘the history of

religion school of thought’ or non-liberal theology (McKim 449-56).

Langdon Gilkey (1919- 2004) Teaching at both the University of Chicago and the

Lutheran School of Theology for over forty years. He studied and taught with eminent

theologians and scholars of religious studies as Paul Tillich, Mircea Eliade, Paul Ricoeur and

David Tracy. His study on Christianity entwined Protestant, Catholic and studies of other

religions. Gilkey’s theological interests were ‘scientific creation, providence, natural sciences,

social sciences and Christian theology’s exchange with other religions. Among his continuing

achievements have been the publications of ten books and a hundred essays. His examples of

Bates 14

existential vulnerability demonstrate how the human condition is fallible and humorous; they

also provide the ground for meaningful modern theological discourse (Price).

The parable of the Talents is said to be the third of the ‘Judgment parables’, focusing not

upon the accountability of the church leaders, but on Christians, who have been given special

gifts. The coin changes involving the synoptic gospels of Matthew and Luke; Matthew uses the

“talent” and Luke uses “minas” which was worth approximately one-sixtieth of a talent. The

talent assumes some allegorical meaning, each servant are trusted with a piece of the kingdom of

God. Each servant is entrusted a different sum, assuming different gifts, “according to his

ability”. No more than what he is capable of handling, each is given a specific responsibility in

which the servant ought to be grateful. In the master’s departing, he instructs the servants to “do

business with these until I return”; the interpreter refers to business as ‘Christian service’ (Hare

286). The first two of the three servants the master was pleased, saying to them, “Enter into the

joy of your Master” (‘enter into’- regarding the Kingdom of heaven), this refers to the Messiah’s

return and Jesus’ worthy servants. However the servant who denied the talent, he is subject to the

judgment of his master. The slave rationalizes his failure, claiming his master is a harsh and

rapacious businessman. The slave was aware the master reaped where he did not sow his share.

The slave returns the talent and removes himself from responsibility, but the master reminds the

slave that he is a ‘harsh’ [an allusion to God] man. The Master justly calls him lazy and

unprofitable. The slave has no love for the Master, no goal, no service, but only interested in

himself (Hare 287).

However, the master condemns the man for his fearful inactivity; his talents were given

to the first servant who had ten talents. Matthews parables exemplifies the parousia [return of

Christ], but fills the nature of Christian life as the awaiting return of Christ. The waiting is where

Bates 15

we should remain “good and faithful”, not passively, but actively with strict obedience and risk.

The servant will be punished for his inactivity. The servant’s misunderstanding God’s subjective

coherent system, as the servants does not know God. Metaphoric meaning in the text observes

the necessity for decision and action toward the gifts of God, otherwise judgment (Boring 465).

The lordship of Christ is spoken in concepts and implication unto a meaning greater than the

story itself. Assuming the return of Christ is soon and the meaning of the text is not the literal

history applied to modern knowledge, but it points to Christ through parable (Boring 458). The

servant reminds us that we must show the master love though servant-hood, faithful and untiring

love to others. No gift used for the sake of the master [Christ] is too modest for significance,

employing a gift; we become good stewards of God’s grace (Hare 288).

Another modern commentator tells of the “Parable of the use of capabilities”. Every man

is gifted talent, diversity of gifts leave man essential parts to a building. So each man should not

envy another’s gift. The master leaves for a long time, so we should measure our stewardship by

our initiative and labor. Man must venture in faith at the risk of Christ. There are gift

equivalencies, but those who finish the tasks, enters the ‘joys of their lord’. The man with one-

talent, prone to resentment, he fails. He blames the hard ways of the master and his own fear. But

the man with one-talent, that talent was taken from him and given to the man with much

(Johnson 558-62).

Modern liberal interpretation of the Bible, after the age of enlightenment created a biased

theology, claiming of the Bible only what can be known. The bias of basic human error caused

by the confidence in man’s reason and lost sight of true understanding and interpretation of fully

comprehensive hermeneutics. The reliance upon man’s understanding sheds new light upon the

reason of man and our limitations without human reason. The so called ‘self-made’ men who

Bates 16

lean upon our understanding through discovery and understanding, attempt to justify divine text

through human reason and fails to find divine meaning with no divine insight.

This myth [faith] would meddle upon the intellect of modern scientific thought, and

causing man a sacrifice to believe. De-mythologizing scripture is the identical to existential

hermeneutics. Interpretation holds a basic understanding of human existence and allegory, which

never ceases to challenge man’s faith and understanding. There is a notion of ‘eschatological

existence’ or a ‘life of faith’, which is understood to be detachment from the world. The apostle

Paul explains as a new creation in place of the old [1 Corinthians 5:17]. Through faith, we should

understand the intent of the text, not always literally, culture many times changes exact meaning,

so therefore interpretation is decided on the faith of the interpreter (Patterson).

Through history methods of Biblical interpretation vary, however the meaning of the

economy of scripture is consistent. The parable challenges the servants in their concern with

their talents for their own sake. Christians are a representation of the servants within the parable

and the masters return represents the second-coming of Christ, the parable equips us with the

knowledge to live in eagerness of Christ’s return. Biblical methods have broadened the

understanding of scripture, not only for theological and scholastic purposes, but for the personal

application of scripture into belief and action. Interpretation is for greater perception and moral

significance, however, simplification creates a clear and concise meaning of which has little

value.

Bates 17

Works Cited

The Bible. Peabody, MA: Handrickson Publishers, 1989. 22.

Boring, M Eugene. The New Interpreters Bible. Vol. 8. Nashville: Abingdon Press, 1995. 12 vols. 456-58.

Bultmann, Rudolf Karl. New Testament and mythology and other basic writings. Philadelphia: Fortress P, 1984.

Calvin, Jean . Calvin’s Commentary: Harmony of Matthew, Mark, and Luke. Vol. 2. Trans. William Pringle. Grand Rapids: WM. B. Errdman, 1957. 440-43.

Gilkey, Langdon Brown. Religion and the Scientific Future Reflections on Myth, Science, and Theology. Macon, Ga.: Mercer UP, 1981.

Hare, Douglas R. Interpretation: Matthew. Louisville: John Knox Press, 1993. 286-88.

Henry, Matthew. Matthew Henry’s Commentary on the Whole Bible. Vol. 5.

Johnson, Sherman E., ed. The Interpreters Bible. Vol. 7. Nashville: Cokesbury P, 1951. 558-62.

McKim, Donald, ed. Dictionary of Major Bible Interpreters. Downers Grove: Inner-Varsity P, 1998. 28-34, 52-60, 99-105, 171-79, 195-98, 385-88, 449-56, 485-88.

Patterson, Bob E., ed. Maker of the Theological Mind. 2nd ed. Waco: Word Books, 1975.Peabody, MA. Hendrickson Publishers. 1991. 301-06.

Price, Joseph L.The Ultimate and the Ordinary: A Profile of Langdon Gilkey. Religion online. 06 Apr. 2009 <http://www.religion-online.org/showarticle.asp?title=841>.

Simonetti, Manilo, ed. Ancient Christian Commentary. Vol. Ib. Downers Grove: Inner-Varsity Press. 2002. 222-29.

Spinka, Matthew. Christian Thought: From Erasmus to Berdyaev. Engle Cliffs, NJ. Prentice-Hall. 1962.

Wesley, John. Explanatory notes upon the New Testament. London: Wesleyan-Methodist Book-Room. 1800. 119-120.