Podcast: Play in new window | Download
In episode 497 of The Reformed Brotherhood, Tony Arsenal and Jesse Schwamb bring the Parable of the Talents to a close with one of the most theologically rich discussions in recent memory. Beginning in Matthew 25:24, they zero in on the one-talent servant — not merely as a cautionary tale about productivity, but as a profound case study in distorted theology. The servant's fatal error wasn't laziness alone; it was a fundamentally false picture of his master. That mischaracterization produced a craven, fearful inaction that the hosts argue maps directly onto the eschatological stakes of the parable. Drawing on Calvin, William Ames, and Reformed confessional commitments, Tony and Jesse make the case that right theology is never merely academic — it shapes the whole of life, and ultimately determines one's eschatological destiny.
The most striking feature of the one-talent servant's account is not what he did — or failed to do — but what he believed. He tells his master, "I knew you to be a hard man, reaping where you did not sow and gathering where you scattered no seed." Tony and Jesse point out that nothing in the parable supports this characterization. A master who entrusts his servants with what amounts to decades of wages — hundreds of years' worth of labor between three servants — is not a hard, exploitative figure. He is astonishingly generous and trusting. The servant has constructed a theological fiction, and that fiction becomes the prison of his own inaction. This is not a peripheral observation; it is the interpretive key to the entire parable. What we believe about God determines everything about how we live before Him.
Calvin famously opens the Institutes with the observation that the knowledge of God and the knowledge of self are so bound together that it is nearly impossible to determine which is logically prior. Jesse draws on this insight to show that the one-talent servant's self-understanding — timid, fearful, paralyzed — flows directly from his distorted image of God. A person who genuinely knows God as gracious, generous, and long-suffering will be motivated to active, trusting faithfulness. A person who privately believes God to be harsh and demanding will retreat into fearful, minimalist compliance. This is not merely a first-century observation. It is a diagnostic tool for self-examination: the shape of our obedience reveals the shape of our theology. Reformed orthodoxy has always insisted that right doctrine is not academic — it is the engine of the Christian life.
One of the most important guardrails Tony and Jesse set up in this episode is against a subtle works-righteousness reading of the parable. It is tempting to hear the parable and conclude: do productive things for the kingdom, and you will be welcomed as a good and faithful servant. But the hosts argue that this inverts the logic of the text entirely. The faithful servants are not commended because they generated a return; they generated a return because they are faithful servants. The wicked servant buries his talent because he is wicked — his character drives his conduct, not the reverse. Justification and sanctification alike are received by faith in Christ alone, and no reading of this parable should suggest that our eschatological standing is secured by our productivity. The sheep act like sheep because they are sheep. That punchline, Tony notes, will carry them straight into the sheep and the goats passage next week.
"Who is it that's not going to be saved in the last day? It's the people who don't recognize the master. The people who think that the master is a hard man who reaps where he has not sown and gathers where he has not scattered. Well, if we think that's who God is, we have a lot of trouble coming our way." — Tony Arsenal
"A person who genuinely knows the living God as gracious, generous, long-suffering, with that kind of hesed kind of love — that person will be motivated to active, trusting faithfulness. A person who privately believes God to be harsh and demanding is always going to retreat in this fearful, minimal kind of compliance." — Jesse Schwamb
"The sheep act like sheep because they're sheep. They don't become sheep because they do sheep things. They do sheep things because they're sheep." — Tony Arsenal
Welcome to episode four hundred and ninety seven of The Reformed Brotherhood. I'm Jesse
And I'm Tony, and this is the podcast with ears to hear Hey, brother
[00:00:42] Jesse Schwamb: Hey, brother. We're back at it again. We're hanging out in Matthew's gospel, the 25th chapter, and it's time to, I think, close out the Parable of the Talents, where we've got two servants that double their master's money, and one who buries his in the ground like a Calvinist who's confused predestination with doing nothing.
And of course, all of this irony is the faithful servants, they can't even take credit. The master supplied the capital, the ability, and apparently even the bull market. It's grace all the way down. But meanwhile, the one talent guy returns exactly what he was given and he gets absolutely wrecked, and we're gonna dig into that.
Gonna dig into- ... that later.
[00:01:26] Jesse Schwamb: But before we do, it's what everybody's waiting for. It's that time in the podcast where we affirm with something that we really like or we recommend or we think is undervalued, or we deny against something that's exactly the opposite. Not worth it, no good, get it out of here.
So Tony, are you affirming with or denying against?
[00:01:43] Tony Arsenal: I'm denying against something related to the World Cup. Um-
[00:01:47] Jesse Schwamb: Okay ...
[00:01:48] Tony Arsenal: I am not a purist, so please don't hear me as, like, elitist soccer dude who is resistant to any sort of changes, but, um, I didn't actually even know this was happening. Are you following the World Cup at all, Jesse?
[00:02:01] Jesse Schwamb: I'm trying to. I'm not against it, I'm just finding myself- Yeah ... stuck in
[00:02:05] Tony Arsenal: trying to like- There, there's a lot going on.
[00:02:06] Jesse Schwamb: Yeah ... yeah, coordinate everything.
[00:02:07] Tony Arsenal: Um, one of the things that they... And they're at weird times this year too- Yes ... at least so far they are.
[00:02:11] Jesse Schwamb: Exactly.
[00:02:11] Tony Arsenal: Um, one of the things this year that I noticed that I didn't know was happening, and I hate it, hate it, hate it, hate it, is, uh, I, I guess I understand why they're doing it, but they've instituted what they're calling mandatory hydration breaks-
[00:02:25] Jesse Schwamb: Oh,
[00:02:26] Tony Arsenal: I've read about this
uh, into the games. Yeah. And essentially what this has done is it's turned a game that used to be, uh, and has always been two 45-minute halves-
[00:02:38] Jesse Schwamb: Mm-hmm ...
[00:02:38] Tony Arsenal: um, uh, with overage time, right? So, like, the, the ref will sometimes just, like, add a couple minutes. Usually it's, you know, three to five, maybe 10 minutes at the most to the end of the, the half.
They've turned that from, uh, two 45-minute halves into now four, what is that? Like, 23-minute quarters, 22 and a half- Right ... minute quarters. Um, and they're not always quarters. They're not always evenly split. They sometimes do the hydration break early or later. Um, this is awful. It's just awful, right? One of the, one of the, um, maybe this is me being a little bit of a soccer purist.
One of the things about soccer that makes it a challenging sport is the endurance of it.
[00:03:21] Jesse Schwamb: Right.
[00:03:22] Tony Arsenal: Right? And contrary to what I think most people think when they watch soccer, um, it's one of the few games, few professional games that doesn't have a ton of breaks- Right? There's not a lot of times where, where match play actually stops for any real amount of time.
Um, and that's what stoppage time is. It's not intended to be something like football, where there often is time on the clock where the clock is still moving, but the game is not, like, actively progressing forward, right? Right. You have to do something special to stop the clock. In soccer, uh, at least historically, 45 minutes of play is 45 minutes of play.
It's, it's 45 minutes of actual actionable play. And now, um, you know, they stop the game. The clock doesn't continue, but now the game stre- like, the, the game itself stretches longer 'cause they've introduced these additional breaks. So I'm denying, uh... This just sounds like s- I'm such a ghoul here. I'm denying mandatory hydration breaks, not because I want soccer players to get sunstroke.
Uh, they get plenty of water. There's plenty of times they get to stop and get water. It's- And this is... We didn't have mandatory hydration breaks when the World Cup was in Qatar. Right. Right? And everybody, for the most part, was fine. Like, the players were all fine. There were no casualties on the field. I don't even recall, like, major medical problems on the field.
We're in LA now. Yeah, it's warm, summer, but come on, guys. Like, let's, let's, let's be real. This is not, uh, this is not rec league. This is not, you know, U15 league play with, with kids. These are adult men who condition for a living. Like, this is their job, is to be conditioned and for their bodies to be in peak performance.
So it's just... It just interrupts the game. I don't know. I'm, I'm being a little crotchety here, but I feel like I have a right to be 'cause this is my show, and I can do what I want to. That's absolutely true. So I'm denying hydration breaks, mandatory hydrat- hydration breaks, which change the game. And a commentator actually commented about that on, on the match the other day.
Um, it changes the dynamic of the game. It changes the strategy of the game. Um, it changes the whole feel of the game, right from the strategy of how long you have to be able to go, right? This will change how- how footballers have to condition themselves, 'cause they're no longer having to condition themselves for two 45-minute halves.
They're having to condition themselves for four 22-and-a-half minute quarters, um, which is not the same game as, as that. So anyway, we'll- it's yet to see, be seen if that has any real impact on the outcome of any games or anything like that. But it was annoying to me, so I'm denying mandatory hydration breaks.
[00:05:59] Jesse Schwamb: That's great. We haven't had a good denial in a little while on this podcast. I think that's fantastic. I mean, not the break, but the denial itself. Plus, and I don't wanna be... You'll have to tell me if I'm speaking conspiratorial here, because most of my apparent World Cup and general sports news still comes from The Wall Street Journal, so that might be a weird place to get it.
But- ... the, I became aware of this through an article that was lamenting the exact same thing. Yeah. It was just basically all the arguments that you said. Like, it's weird, and the game wasn't designed this way, and it's definitely like an interruption. It's definitely like an insertion.
[00:06:32] Jesse Schwamb: And then, of course, was all the stuff about, isn't this really about just allowing commercial break time, and it's more about that, and we're just conveniently saying that we need the hydration breaks.
And what else would they, we have them do if we needed to force them to take a break but say, "You know what? Why don't you guys take a knee and get some water- Yeah ... while we show you some ads?" So I imagine that doesn't sit well with people either.
[00:06:52] Tony Arsenal: Yeah. I mean, I'm sure that that's the case. Again, I, I haven't even been able to watch a full, full World Cup match, so I don't, I don't know...
I don't even know how long the hydration breaks are, to be honest with you. But yes, it's an interruption in play where they can cut to commercial. And whether that was why they put this in place or not, or whether they're just utilizing it, it's obnoxious. Like, part of the fun of watching soccer is that there is no commercial break for the first 45 minutes.
Right. Um, that's just part of- Which is unusual in sports ... part of the joy of the game, is that it's a continual game with no real breaks. Um, even when, like, a player is injured because, you know, there's an injury on the field or something like that, um, even when that happens, they don't cut to commercial because there was no planned commercial.
They don't have anything there. Right. So, um, it's changed, like, the way... Y- you know, even, even things like this is gonna change how uniforms are thought out, because sponsorship money through uniforms used to be the m- one of the main commercial-driving, like, sponsorships for, um, for the game. So I'm just annoyed by it.
[00:07:53] Tony Arsenal: There's an- a couple other things that I'm annoyed by this year. They have this... It's kinda like that automatic up call checker thing we talked about. Right. They have this, like, um- They call it mistaken identity, uh, recheck. Basically where if a player is fouled or appears to be fouled, they can, someone can flag it and it will recheck it and, like, digitally the system tells them whether there was a foul or not.
And like I said before when we were talking about this a little bit before, um, there is a real element in the game, or there has been a real element to the game historically, where the ump is almost like, or the ref is almost like a third player, and you have to be wise and play the ref. Um, you have to, you know, there's, there's an element of a little bit of, uh, espionage and subtle- Right
you know, subterfuge here going on in the game that I think people outside the game who are just watching, they look and they think like, "Oh, yeah, that guy flopped." But there's a whole, like, art and there's a whole form to that, and there's real cost if you do it poorly. Um, and so, like, we've already had one instance where a yellow card was called on a player.
Uh, the other player simulated the foul. Um, and so they reversed it and gave the other guy a yellow card, but they did that after the game. Um, which, which is a whole other thing. Like, you play a whole game, um I could talk about this all night. Like when you get, when you get a red card- ... you're, you're out for an entire game, not just- Right
the rest of this game. You're out for an entire game. Your position is out for an entire game, so that might mean you start the next match down a player. Well, what does that mean if you are given a red card sort of posthumously after the match, right? Right. Like, you- it's changed the whole calculation because for the whole game, that player, uh, was playing as though he didn't have a yellow card.
And that, maybe that's good, maybe that's bad, but he was playing the game as though he didn't have a yellow card, and then all of a sudden now he does. Um, he doesn't go... I don't think he goes into the next match starting with a yellow card. Um, a- and so I'm kind of like, "Well, what's the, what's the point?"
But, um, you know, some of that plays into, like, if there's ties and ties, match, match point ties, then they start looking at who has penalties and stuff. But either way, it's annoying that they, they're introducing this. Like, we didn't need to have... Yes, there's probably a place for reviewing a, a bad ref's calls.
Right. They've also added, like, automatic on offsides. There was a whole strategy and a whole part of the game of forcing a person offsides, of drawing a person offsides, being offsides without looking like you're offsides. Some people may look at that and go, "Well, that's cheating," but no, it's actually just part of the game.
Right. Like, playing the ref and understanding that is part of the game. And now it's still part of the game, but it's part of the game in a different way, and that's... Maybe I am just being a purist, but I just, I don't like it. I don't like it. Give me back my beautiful game the way it's always been and get off my lawn, get off the turf, get off my pitch, whatever.
Um, I'm denying the fact that the World Cup is not as it's always been. But also, like, we don't need this stuff. Like, the World Cup has been fine for how many years?
[00:11:03] Jesse Schwamb: Right.
[00:11:03] Tony Arsenal: We don't need water breaks like this- W- i- you know, if it was like last World Cup, five players died from dehydration in the middle of the...
Like, okay, like yeah, let's do some water breaks. But like, nobody died. Nobody even had major medical emergencies. I think a couple people had to come out of the game a little early 'cause they weren't well-hydrated. But like- Right ... run to the side, get a water bottle. Like, you can do that in the middle of a game.
There's nothing- Yeah ... against the rules to stand by the sideline, drink when someone's doing a substitution or even in the middle of the game. I've seen that happen, where someone will sprint over to the sideline, they'll take a drink of water, and then they'll throw the cup back over. So anywho, we should move on.
This could be my entire, my entire rant of, for a whole episode- Good ... against the weird changes in, in World Cup soccer, so.
[00:11:48] Jesse Schwamb: Listen, I love it.
[00:11:49] Jesse Schwamb: My favorite hack, uh, for World Cup soccer so far this year, and this was given to me by a colleague, uh, and a brother, I think this is fantastic, is right now because my wife is convalescing, we have all the subscriptions temporarily to allow, like, the full healing process to take place.
Watch whatever you want, wherever you want. Except for the World Cup, because the, uh... I- it was just, like, where you could actually get it in English was, like, crazy expensive, at least for me. So here's the thing, though. Somebody reminded me uh, that we have Peacock and that because of Telemundo, could just watch and stream the entire World Cup in Spanish.
So guess what, loved ones? We're learning a lot more Spanish- I love it ... and we're watching the World Cup with the announcers on. I'm not turning off that, 'cause that's the best part. And, you know, I'm getting, like, 25% of what's being said, but it is awesome. And there's- Yeah ... a lot more energy and excitement.
So if for some reason you have Peacock and you're saying, "Oh, I'm missing the World Cup," technically you don't have to. It's all there for you. That's amazing. Just you gotta embrace Spanish.
[00:12:46] Tony Arsenal: That's amazing. And yes, actually, it probably is more entertaining.
[00:12:49] Jesse Schwamb: It is.
[00:12:50] Tony Arsenal: Um, and you don't, you don't need to... You really don't need to understand what the commentator is- No
I mean, like 90% of the time the commentator's like, "Oh, he's having a good year," and, uh- ... yeah, like, "Oh, yeah, yeah, he's looking real great. Do you see how his, uh, laces are laced up?" Like, they're just trying to fill time.
[00:13:05] Jesse Schwamb: Right.
[00:13:05] Tony Arsenal: So it doesn't really matter what they're saying. And when it does matter what they're saying, you'll get it just from the-
[00:13:11] Jesse Schwamb: Yes
[00:13:11] Tony Arsenal: just from what the announcer's voices are doing. So I'll have to check that out. Yeah, the, the matches are at weird times, at least so far. I think, I think that once we get out of group play, m- a lot of the matches shift to the East Coast, so there'll be, uh, a little bit more normal times.
[00:13:25] Jesse Schwamb: Right.
[00:13:25] Tony Arsenal: But, like, the first, the first, uh, US match was at 9:00 Eastern Time, and then, like, the last one's at 10:00 Eastern Time.
Yeah.
[00:13:32] Jesse Schwamb: So
[00:13:33] Tony Arsenal: late. Yeah, super late, and it's a, it's a three-hour match by the time you, you get done with halftime and everything. So yeah, it'll, it'll... It's, it's frustrating. Although historically, um, every time the men, the men's team has won their first match, they've gotten out of group play, and every time they've lost their fir- first match, they have not gotten out of group play.
And we, we really, really won our first match. Yes. Yeah. So I think, I think we'll get out of group play. I think probably, depending on how the, the cards roll, um, we'll probably, we'll probably get through our first elimination round, maybe our second, but we're not gonna go much further than that. Um, even, even that would be a, a pretty good victory, so- Anyway, football is life, right?
Danny Ross. Um, do, did you watch Ted last night? Yes,
[00:14:24] Jesse Schwamb: I have seen it. Yes.
[00:14:25] Tony Arsenal: That was good. Football is life. Um, that's me this time of year. Like, I wore a soccer jersey to work on Friday, and nobody could tell me I couldn't do that, and I didn't care. So- I
[00:14:33] Jesse Schwamb: love it ...
[00:14:34] Tony Arsenal: uh, nobody even tried. Everybody, everybody's fine.
Everybody loves soccer- How dare they ... and loves the World Cup, so. Yeah. That's the truth. Anywho, save me from this. I, I literally could talk about soccer all night. This is the one sport that I get like this. And the... Not even the one sport. The one sporting event that I get like this about is the World Cup.
I love it. So you've gotta, you gotta stop me or I'm not gonna, not gonna stop. Let
[00:14:54] Jesse Schwamb: it out.
[00:14:54] Jesse Schwamb: Well, I would say, like, we could play that game with our affirmations and denials where it's, like, six degrees of separation, but we only need one. And this is gonna sound like it was planned, but it wasn't. Your denial, of course, as you've just well articulated, was about hydration breaks.
Turns out my affirmation is actually about hydration. So-
[00:15:11] Tony Arsenal: Jesse's affirming hydration breaks. We're about
[00:15:13] Jesse Schwamb: to fight. Yeah. No, I'm, I'm definitely not a- affirming hydration breaks, but this might be the kind of hydration they're having. I don't know, but it's the one I'm gonna recommend. So where I live, it is the summertime, and where I live, we get both the heat and the humidity, and that's the oppressive part, isn't it?
It's where it feels like the inside of a dog's mouth. And so I actually just came back from a run, and my go-to hydration break for myself is, uh, Nuun, N-U-U-N. And here's the reason why, is I've had Gatorade, I've had all the... I've had Liquid IV, I've had all that stuff. Most of the time it's r- too sweet. Nuun is just these effervescent dissolvable tablets that you drop into water, and it creates this low sugar electrolyte drink.
It has all, like, the normal stuff. It has sodium, potassium, magnesium, calcium, chloride, all that good stuff, but there's just one gram of sugar. And it's this convenient little tab. Like, you can just get this whole little roll of tabs. You can carry them with you if you're going hiking or you're camping or you're out and gonna do a run.
You just drop them into a bottle of water or whatever size water you want. I usually go 32 ounces is the way I like it. They have all, all kinds of flavors. It's just the right thing. Like, it's... It is like the refreshing thing of water, but when you're like, "You know what? I wanna taste something that's not water."
So Nuun is, like, the right thing. I may have referred to it before, so I'm sorry if I did. But I'm referring with you can order it on, like, Amazon or any kind of, I don't know, general kind of camping or sports-oriented store is probably gonna be there. But it's... For me, it's the right thing because I don't know about you, but I find most sports drinks, like, in general too sweet.
Like, you, you start... You have one, and then if I get through it, I'm kind of like, "Ugh, now I feel like my mouth is, like, really just coated in sugar, and that's not what I wanted." Yeah. So this feels like you're, you're getting a little less sweetness, but you don't feel guilty afterwards like you've just consumed a bunch of sugar.
I will admit, I drink one I guess it's like 12 ounce Gatorade every week, just one. And this is because there's a delightful and loving, like, 72-year-old woman in our congregation who brings, I believe it's her own, she invests this every week. She brings for the team that is doing the worship through music Gatorade, uh, because she thinks we need to be replenished.
So really, we have a hydration break- ... right before the service. But she, it's so beautiful and so delightful, I will never refuse it, and I am also on often parched at the time. So-
[00:17:31] Tony Arsenal: Yeah ...
[00:17:31] Jesse Schwamb: it does work out, so.
[00:17:31] Tony Arsenal: Jesse's worship team goes real hard. They need to hydrate in the middle. They do a mandatory hydration break in the middle of the- It's, yeah
middle of the service.
[00:17:39] Jesse Schwamb: It's mandatory. Yes. We are strict.
[00:17:41] Tony Arsenal: Yeah. And it's an, it's a good time for announcements and commercial breaks. Um, yeah. I, I think, uh, and you're... I don't know if you're gonna believe me when I say this. With all of the Nuun that passes its way around the family home when we're all here- Yeah
at summertime, I've never had-
[00:17:57] Jesse Schwamb: Oh, really? ...
[00:17:57] Tony Arsenal: Nuun. Yeah. We never tried it. I think our go-to for, for sort of powdered energy drink or powdered, uh, sports drink is little Propel packets.
[00:18:05] Jesse Schwamb: Um- Oh,
[00:18:05] Tony Arsenal: that's not bad either. Propel's not bad. I like Propel. It's very sweet, but it, it doesn't- Yeah ... um, Propel- doesn't add sugar.
I think that they've, they've got their formula where it's a sugar-free formula. Um, but it is very sweet. So sometimes I'll only do, like, a half a packet of Propel- Yeah ... which I know kind of, they, they argue that or they, like, advertise as, like, "It's the perfect balance of electro-" I don't know if it's the perfect balance of electrolytes, but- Um, but some is better than none probably.
Yeah. And, uh, Propel is not better than Nuun apparently, so.
[00:18:36] Jesse Schwamb: I, I, I think Nuun is, like, top shelf electrolyte. And you can get it, like I said, in lots of flavors. One of the fun things is you can get it caffeinated or uncaffeinated. I mean, most, most of it is uncaffeinated. But if you're like you wanted to have some, they have a what they call Kona Cola, and it is cola-flavored and has caffeine.
It's amazing, because it's, like, just slightly effervescent, a little bit bubbly. Not too much. It's still, like, refreshing, but if you like the cola flavor, which as you know is its own distinct combination of elements and spices, then it's right on. So- Yeah ... it's really nice. So there you go. Yeah. Nuun- I- And if you're gonna take a hydration break because you're being forced to while you're playing soccer, I highly suggest you choose Nuun.
That's the way to go.
[00:19:22] Tony Arsenal: Yeah. Yeah, I don't know. I don't know what they're drinking. I think most of the time they're just drinking water.
[00:19:26] Jesse Schwamb: Probably.
[00:19:26] Tony Arsenal: So I, I don't... I mean, I, I think you're supposed to drink something with some electrolytes, so maybe they have some electrolyte-
[00:19:32] Jesse Schwamb: Yeah ...
[00:19:32] Tony Arsenal: water in it. I don't know.
[00:19:33] Jesse Schwamb: I don't know.
Probably.
[00:19:34] Jesse Schwamb: Here's the thing. If you wanna tell us what you like to drink or when you are, let's say, serving the Lord's people by participating in worship through music and you're forced to take a hydration break, as I am at times, then you need to go to t.me\reformedbrotherhood. Put that into your browser right now.
Take a hydration break and put t.me\reformedbrotherhood into your browser and that will send you to a link for Telegram, which is just a little chat app in which we have a small corner of the world. It's brothers and sisters listening to the podcast, interacting, and it's about time, actually, we probably had some kinda taste test stuff-
[00:20:11] Tony Arsenal: Yeah
with,
[00:20:12] Jesse Schwamb: like, these kinda hydration drinks. There's so many of them now. Some of them are, like, purposely salty. Some of them are really sweet. Some have all these crazy and wild flavors. Some of them have all kinds of caffeine. So let us know what you like, but best way to do that- Please ... is join the Telegram group.
[00:20:26] Tony Arsenal: Yeah. And please do not, uh, do not make your church stop their service for a hydration break. Please don't do that. The only hydration break I wanna hear you talking about in your church service is a baptism. So please-
[00:20:38] Jesse Schwamb: I knew that's
[00:20:38] Tony Arsenal: where you were going ... do not interrupt the Lord's day for a hydration break.
Just if you need water, just, like, step out of the room, take a drink of water, come back. Or if you're in a church that lets you have water in the sanctuary, like most do, just take a drink. That's true. You don't have to- Yeah ... stand up. You don't need to have- That's good ... anyone interpret. Just take a quick drink and then be quiet.
Just
[00:20:54] Jesse Schwamb: go to the sidelines, maybe sub out- Mm-hmm ... with somebody else who can play bass, and take a quick drink.
[00:21:00] Tony Arsenal: Exactly. Come back. Yeah. Or just dump the, dump the Propel powder straight in your mouth.
[00:21:05] Jesse Schwamb: I thought you were gonna say like have somebody come up, preferably like an elder, and just hose you down with a thing of Gatorade while you're, while you're
playing
[00:21:10] Tony Arsenal: Yeah, exactly.
Just go up to the baptismal font, take a scoop of water, dump the Propel directly in the baptis- no, I'm just kidding. I shouldn't joke about that stuff. Yeah.
[00:21:19] Tony Arsenal: Anyway, Jesse, I'm excited because although we are probably gonna round out this parable, we're not done with these parables because- Oh, yeah, that's
[00:21:28] Jesse Schwamb: right
[00:21:28] Tony Arsenal: although we're gonna finish this parable this week, we'll probably finish it and get started talking about, uh, the next, the little chunk of text, which is not a parable, but we can't really, uh, divorce it from these parables 'cause they're all telling, they're all making the same or a very similar point about what the kingdom of heaven will be like in relation to the end times- Mm-hmm
in relation to the eschatological, um, outcome of all things. Uh, and, and Christ in his teaching, um, he kind of rounds out this teaching and finalizes what these parables mean by talking to us about the sheep and the goats. Um, which again, is not really formed like a parable, but, uh, but it has very similar structures.
It has some similar elements to it. Um, but it, it's so integral to what these, all what this sort of like, uh, anthology of eschatological parables mean in all the discourse. We really have to cover that to, to cover the others fully. But tonight we're gonna finish our discussion about the parable of the talents, which I'm excited about because I think we're gonna, we're gonna round out on some stuff that, um, I, I hope you've heard, uh, is probably not as, um, prominent as it should be.
Uh, and this, we talked about last time that this parable has been, uh, not necessarily applied properly in many popular- Right ... teachings. Uh, and so I'm, I'm sure you've heard not so great interpretations. Hopefully we're gonna give you an interpretation that's a little bit more accurate and faithful to what the Bible teaches.
[00:23:00] Jesse Schwamb: And so we're gonna pick it up in verse 24 of Matthew 25, because you'll probably recall, and if you haven't it's because you need to go back and listen, that we talked about the first two of these servants and the return that they were able to garner on the investment which the Lord gave them when He went away.
And then there's the third dude. So we're gonna pick it up there and go all the way to the end of this, which allow us to close it out. So beginning verse 24, "And the one also had received the one talent came up and said, 'Master, I knew you'd be a hard man, reaping where you did not sow and gathering where you scattered no seed.
And I was afraid, and I went and hid your talent in the ground. See, have what is yours.' But the master answered and said to him, 'You wicked, lazy slave. You knew that I reap where I did not sow and gather where I scattered no seed; therefore you ought to have put my money in the bank, and on my arrival I would have at least received my money back with interest.
Therefore take away the talent from him, and give it to the one who has 10 talents. For to everyone who has more, more shall be given, and he will have an abundance. But from the one who does not have, even what he does not have,' excuse me, 'what he does have shall be taken away. And throw out the worthless slave into the outer darkness.
In that place, there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth.'"
[00:24:18] Tony Arsenal: Yeah. Yeah.
[00:24:19] Tony Arsenal: There, there's some, um, some textual things about this that I think, uh, we sh- should at least acknowledge. I don't know that we're gonna dig too deep into them. Um, it is very possible to, um, to read verse 30 Almost as an interpretive statement in itself rather than part of the, um, part of the parable itself.
And, and so let me, let me see if I can, can parse that out. So if we read it as though it's part of the parable, then it is the s- the, the master in the parable who is saying, "And cast the worthless servant into the darkness; in the place there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth." I think that's the most natural reading, so I'll, I'll put my cards on the table that I think that we should read this as part of the parable itself.
It's also possible linguistically and grammatically to sort of read this as an explanation, where Christ is now taking this principle of what has happened with the worthless servant, right? That even what he has will be taken away. And then, and then to sort of read this as a commentary that sort of, uh, like we saw before, um, kind of bridges this section with the next.
So instead of reading, "And cast the worthless servant into the outer darkness," uh, as though it were part of the parable, that it was this master within the parable saying this, we can read this as Christ saying that this is what will happen to those who are worthless servants. And then that follows up with, in verse 31, kind of h- connecting to when the Son of Man comes in His glory and all the angels with Him, then He will sit on His glorious throne.
Before Him will be gathered all nations. Right. Th- this next sort of, like, more explicit, non-parabolical, um, uh, eschatological teaching. I think that former one is more natural, but just because it's, it's present in a lot of the commentaries that this is there, I wanted to at least call that out. I don't know that it makes a ton of difference in terms of how we understand the parable, but I do think, you know, part of what it means for us to wrestle through this is not just to take a particular position on the text, but to discuss, like, some of these ambiguities that are present.
Um, and, and sometimes, um Sometimes I think we need to be cautious and really think through, because, uh, let me, let me rephrase it this way. None of the teaching in the Bible is sort of uninterpreted, untranslated, raw teaching of Christ. All of this is coming to us from the apostles retelling it, and yes, inspired by the Holy Spirit, so all of it's God's Word.
But it's not as though, um, it's not as though Christ was first speaking in Greek. That's the big thing. But there are some places in the New Testament, in the Gospels, where it's not always clear whether a passage is Christ speaking or the, uh, the Gospel writer interpreting what Christ is speaking. This is one of those places where there's a little bit of a question mark about that.
Um, again, I think the most natural reading is to read this as part of the statement of the master within the parable, but I did wanna just comment on that before we moved on much further.
[00:27:31] Jesse Schwamb: Yeah, that's helpful because I think we've gotta understand that end in light of how it's evolving. And we, we're starting with that stark contrast between the first two, which receive this great reward, which receive accolades and praise, and then you have this one talent servant's response is all about hiddenness.
He just digs a hole, puts it in the ground, and hides it away. Which by the way, of course, we talked about this in the other parables, like in the ancient world, burying valuables was recognized as a form of safekeeping. I mean, I think even Josephus mentions that. We talk about the pearl of great price.
There was something to be known for, well, I have this valuable thing. The best place for me to, the best place for me to put it so that it isn't compromised is in the ground, in a secret place. And there's like a surface level, I guess, reasonableness to that act. But what's interesting and where it comes in with that heat that you're kinda talking about, that ends up being in the end this grand statement of the eschatological, eschatological reality, is that the parable here with this one talent servant treats all that action as like complete catastrophic failure.
And I, I think as much as I can understand it, it's because the master did not give him this talent to protect it from loss. He gave it to him for, to use it for gain And so the servant has mistaken the nature of that commission entirely. He substituted like the security-seeking for risk-taking faithfulness.
And so I think that informs some of then what happens in these latter verses here, like when we get all the way down to 30. Because I think when we read that, we see the, like the redistribution as scandalous. But the scandal really is in this lack of actions. Like gifts exercised grow, but gifts buried, they just atrophy.
So the one t- talent servant's talent is taken because he's, he's already been treated as n- as it was, was nothing. He's functionally like forfeited it by burying it. And so the transfer of the 10-talent servant is the formal confirmation of what his own choices had, had already produced. I think there is something there about like the eschatological reality, reality that will unfold in the judgment, which of course leads to, into the end of this chapter
[00:29:36] Tony Arsenal: Yeah.
Yeah, I think you're right on that.
[00:29:39] Tony Arsenal: Um, what we see the problem with the one talent servant is not, um, not that he's not productive.
[00:29:49] Jesse Schwamb: Right.
[00:29:49] Tony Arsenal: I mean, I think that's, that's actually the symptom of the illness, not the illness itself. What we see with the, the one talent servant is that he misunderstands his task, as you're pointing out, but more foundationally, he misunderstands his master, right?
And that, that's really the, the main point of the parable when we kinda get... You know, Christ, um, when He's telling a parable, He explains the parable. Sometimes He doesn't explain the parable at all. He just sorta drops the parable and then moves on. Other times He will give the interpretation itself, like directly.
We saw that in the parable of the, uh, of the soils or the parable of the sower. Um, and, and other times the kind of like the main explanation of the parable is, is actually embedded in the parable. And I think for this parable, the main explanation is when the, the one talent servant, uh, comes forward and he, when he's explaining why he did what he did-
[00:30:47] Jesse Schwamb: Right
[00:30:48] Tony Arsenal: he says, "Well, I knew you were a," uh, let me just find it for sure here. He says, um, "I knew that you were a..." I just lost it. My brain is totally lost here. You ever have that happen where you're trying to find a word- Yes ... on a text and you just can't? He says, "Master," in verse 24, he says, "Master, I knew you to be a hard man, reaping where you did not sow and gathering where you scattered no seed.
So I was afraid. I went and hid your talent in the ground. Here you have what is yours." There's a number of statements in here that just don't make any sense. Like, they're just... Like you said, a lot of these parables have kind of like a chump figure, where, like, he's sort of like the designated idiot of the parable.
[00:31:31] Jesse Schwamb: Right.
[00:31:32] Tony Arsenal: In this instance, there's so much wrong that it's almost hard to find something right. And, you know, he starts out, he says, "I knew you were a hard man." There's nothing in the parable, there's nothing that suggests that this is a hard man. There's nothing to suggest that. He, as we said last week, he trusts these servants with an almost unimaginable amount of wealth, right?
He just leaves hundreds of years worth of wealth in the, in the, like... And it's not even like he's going off to war and he may never be coming back. He's just going on a journey.
[00:32:05] Jesse Schwamb: Right.
[00:32:05] Tony Arsenal: He's just traveling for a little while, and he's like, "I'm gonna leave 100 years worth of labor with this guy and 40 years worth of labor with this guy and 20 years worth of labor with this guy."
He, what, what, in what world is that a hard man who just blesses and trusts his servants with that amount of unimaginable wealth? But then he says, "I knew that you, uh, reaped where you did not sow and gathered where you scattered no seed." First of all, um, what kind of person accumulates this kind of wealth without reaping, uh, without the, like, a- apart from the principle of reaping and sowing and gathering and, and scattering?
Like, he obviously is a very successful businessman. Um, the, the fact that this, uh, servant is couching this in agricultural terms, I think it's reasonable to think that this is a very successful landowner who has made good use of his land, has turned a profit Obviously he's reaping where he sows and he's gathering where he scattered or he wouldn't have this kind of money to throw around to leave with his servants in the first place.
But the servant doesn't recognize that the fact that he was given one talent is in fact the master reaping or sowing and scattering the seed of these talents. So he's saying like, "Well, you reap where you have not sown," but the fact is like he was sown a full talent worth of resources and he, the, the master expected to reap what he had sown when he gets back.
So this servant He's worthless and he's lazy, but he's also just kind of dumb in that he just doesn't- Right ... recognize the reality of what's going on. He has an incorrect understanding of who the master is. He thinks he's a hard man, when actually he's an incredibly trusting and generous master, right?
The, the ESV masks this as servants. We're not talking about hired hands here. We're talking about slaves. Right. We're talking about h- probably about household slaves. This is doulos. These are the slaves that work in the fields, um, as opposed to, like, diakonos, which are the slaves that work in the house, right?
These are, these are field servants. These are laborers that are indentured or are, are in servitude, and he gives them enough wages, enough labor, enough money, they could just take off and leave with it. They could buy their own freedom with this. Right. He trusts them with that. That's not a description of a hard man, a hard, lazy man who sows w- reaps where he doesn't sow and gathers where he doesn't scatter.
So the primary issue here with this servant is not that he's lazy, although he is lazy. It's not that he's wicked. He is wicked. It's that he doesn't recognize who the master is. He doesn't understand who the master is and what is expected of him as a servant of that master, which I think, I think, as I've thought about this over the last week or so, I think that actually says everything about the eschatological import of this, right?
Yes. Who is it that's not going to be saved in the last day?
[00:34:56] Jesse Schwamb: That's right.
[00:34:57] Tony Arsenal: It's the people who don't recognize the master. Right on. The people who think that the master is a hard man who reaps where he has not sown and gathers where he has not scattered. Well, if we think that's who God is, we have a lot of trouble coming our way.
[00:35:10] Jesse Schwamb: Yeah, that is the heart, right, of this dude's sin. It's a false theology of God that produces then this fearful inaction. Because, like you said, it's not just that he's been lazy. He has constructed this weird, distorted picture of his master, and then he allows that distortion to govern his behavior. So this, quote-unquote, "fear" is not like the fear of the Lord that is the beginning of wisdom, but it's this kind of craven dread that's rooted in a mischaracterization of the master's entire character.
And one of the things that I think, among many, that's really great about the Reformed theological tradition is that it's always assisted, and I th- hopefully we along with it in our conversations, that, like, the right theology is not merely academic. It does shape the whole life, which is why, like, Calvin famously opens his institutes with this observation that the knowledge of God and the knowledge of self are bound together.
So- Yeah ... a person who genuinely knows the living God as gracious, generous, long-suffering, with that kind of hesed kind of love, who is good- W- that person will be motivated to active, trusting faithfulness. A person who privately believes God to be harsh and demanding is always, I think, going to retreat in this fearful, minimal kind of minimum champion-type compliance.
It's the same thing, I think I always think about this for some reason, and mention it a lot probably, but it's the same thing with Joseph's brothers finding all their money back in the sacks-
[00:36:31] Tony Arsenal: Yeah ...
[00:36:32] Jesse Schwamb: with their food. It's, like, in that instant moment, all they have is fear and dread. And it- for this guy, that's exactly what he has.
But it doesn't start, like you're saying, merely because he realizes that he should have done more, or he's comparing his return with that of everybody else, or even that he's going back and taking a look at his own actions and finding them to be full of want or lack. In fact, he does a really good job, at least in his own mind, theologically justifying his behavior.
So here, what he, the real crime, the real shame, the real sin is that somehow he views the master as harsh and demanding and exploitative. That's wild. But of course, that was the root of everything else, which I think does give us pause to reflect on our own lives, like I said, as we come to understanding how this parable reads us.
[00:37:20] Tony Arsenal: Yeah.
[00:37:21] Tony Arsenal: And, um- Part of the reason why I think it's important to understand what I was talking about earlier with, you know, the, the Gospels are an interesting sort of like composite document in that, yes, they contain the true sayings of Jesus, the true, true, um, words of Christ. But this is also, a- and I promise that this will loop back around, this is, um, this is important for us.
The red letters are no more God's word than the black letters, right? Mm-hmm. And what I mean by that is, like, the, the so-called words of Christ in scripture are not more inspired or more profitable than the words that are the commentary of the apostles. And I only say so-called, and I'll explain why I say that.
As I said, like, Matthew is translating, uh, he- first of all, he's recalling what Christ has said. He's, he's probably not, um, sitting there with a, with a quill and a, you know, a piece of paper or a piece of parchment- Right ... transcribing what's, what Christ is saying as he goes. Right? He's, he was there. Matthew was there.
He's recalling what Christ has said under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit. He's making editorial decisions about what Christ taught in terms of like, what of Christ's teaching do I capture? What do I summarize? And I think there's ... It's important because every word is inspired, but also it's understandable.
And what I mean here, and what, the reason I'm kind of belaboring that is I think there's an interesting thing that happens in verse 29. It says, "For to everyone who has, more will be given, and he will have an abundance. And from the one who has not, even what he has will be taken." So this, this concept actually that, um, that verse 30 might be, uh, might actually be Matthew's commentary or even Christ's explanation of the parable, I think that actually, that actually expands to verse 29 in some of the commentators.
So if we read it this way, and I think this, this may be valuable for us to at least ponder. If we read it this way, verse 27 is still the master in the parable space. It says, "Then you ought to have invested my money with the bankers, and at my coming I should have received what was my own with interest.
So take the talent from him and give it to him who has 10 talents." There's a way of understanding this text, uh, and it's grammatically acceptable. I think theologically it doesn't change a lot, but it's worth us at least considering this. There's a way of reading this text where that's the end of the parable, and then Christ is explaining the parable, or Ma- or even maybe Matthew is commenting on the parable.
It says, "For to everyone who has, more will be given, and he will have an abundance. But to the one who has not, even what he has will be taken away." Now, I think that, um, as I said, the most natural way to read this is that the parable proper ends with verse 30, that all of this is part of the parable, all of this is the master in the parable speaking.
But I do think verses 29 and 30 take on a more explanatory, um, uh, explanatory role, and this is the main reason why. The, the one parable, one talent servant in the parable, he's not properly described as the one who has not, right? He had one talent. He was given one talent. Right. It's not as though he had zero talents.
The one who has not, even what he has will be taken away, and the one who has, more will be given.
[00:41:01] Tony Arsenal: This is actually, I think, where we can go really sideways on this parable. I hear this parable often interpreted as sort of this understanding that, like, God has blessed His people with certain gifts, and we have to use our gifts in the kingdom to be productive, and people who use their gifts in productive fashion will be given more responsibility and more opportunities.
People who don't use their gifts, whatever opportunities they have will be taken away from them. Now, I, I would argue that's probably true on a practical level, um, and that's just actually just true in general, right? Right. A person who has responsibility, th- think of, like, your working environment. M- you know, all, most of our listeners are not working in regular pastoral ministry.
This is one of those areas where I think, actually, the corporate world is more representative of how things are. Um, in the corporate world, if you are given responsibility and you excel and use that responsibility well and you are a productive servant of your company that you work for, you're going to be given more responsibility, whether that's in the form of a promotion, which is the ideal circumstances, or whether that's just your responsibilities as assigned, a job description expanding without pay.
Either way, if you do a good job, if you, if you take the sphere of influence, the sphere of responsibility that you're given and you do a good job and you shepherd that well and you steward that well, that sphere of influence, that sphere of responsibility will expand. Um- If you squander it and you sit in your office watching TikTok videos or listening to music and you don't use that, uh, responsibility well, that sphere of influence will shrink, and ultimately it will shrink until you no longer have a job, right?
It works a little differently, I think, in, like, traditional pastoral roles, and I think there are some in our audience that, them, are in those roles that this may not fit. That's a good general principle. I don't think that's what this is teaching. Like, I don't think this, this parable is about, like, productive ministry opportunities.
Right. And if it was, we wouldn't be talking about people who have none, have not, right? We would be talking about people who have less. We'd be talking about people who are given less responsibility. The person who has no responsibility is who's in view here. And that's why- Mm ... I think it actually, this is shifting, this ex- explanation, whether it's, uh, sort of like an explanation, an explanatory punchline to the parable that's part of the parable itself, or whether it's Jesus or Matthew commenting on the meaning of the parable.
The difference between those two things is important for us to think about. It's not so important in terms of what the actual meaning is. Because the difference here is that what we've now done is we've shifted from the context of a financial grounded analogy in the parable to now a broader discussion about the fact that there are those who have, and there are those who have not.
And the people who have will be given more, and the people who have not will be taken away from. And if we were talking strictly financially, then now we're, like, in, like, Occupy Wall Street, 1% kind of era. We're talking about salvation. We're talking about, um, we're talking about the fact that God gives salvation to some, and He does not give salvation to others.
He gives grace to some, and He does not give grace to others. And to those who have grace, more grace will be given. To those who have not grace, more will be taken away. And the outcome of that- Is that the worthless servant who is the one who has not, the worthless servant will be cast into the outer darkness, right?
This is a, an explanation of what it means to be a worthless servant who ultimately ends their time. Ends is not the right word. Who ultimately has the outcome of s- of outer darkness for all eternity. If this parable is just about how we use our giftings and our skills and our money for the kingdom, and we're expected to be productive and to, like, increase the kingdom through our tithing and through our, like our service, then this comment about, like, the outer darkness is really out of place.
Unless, unless we earn our salvation by that. Which of course we know we don't.
[00:45:22] Jesse Schwamb: Right. Right.
[00:45:24] Jesse Schwamb: Here's how I think everything you said is true, and the scripture actually bears this out because it was exactly where you're going with that, which is we're talking more about the identity. Like, what, what makes this servant or slave worthless?
That's the critical question. And then if we understand that, it'll help inform how we then interpret this idea of sheeps and goats, which we'll get to in a whole other episode. But if you look at verses 26 and 27, where the master then responds to this slave calls him wicked and slothful, slothful, right?
So that his, his basically lack of usefulness comes embedded or underneath those two terms. So one, obviously the wickedness here is moral. It's a failure to fulfill a covenantal obligation to the master, which we've been talking about. So again, it's not just about laziness. Like there's, there's so much more there.
It's as if that's the entry point for the master to bring condemnation on him in two forms. One is that wickedness. The second is this idea of like slothfulness, which is dispen- I was gonna say dispensational, but what I meant to say is dispositional. So it's like, uh, like a subtle inertia of the will, and together they're describing a person, and I think this is a critical point.
This is a person whose heart has never been genuinely aligned with the master's purposes. Now, when we understand it that way, I think, then everything that follows makes a lot more sense because it's not just about bad timing in the market. It's not just about being fearful that you're gonna lose money and you're risk-averse, so therefore you hid, hid everything.
It's really this idea that this, this s- slave, this one talent slave, he was not on board, not vibing with, not aligned with, however you wanna say it, with the master's purposes from the very beginning. And there is maybe we might say like a minimum of faithfulness, even interest on the deposit that God requires.
But the question of course is never am I doing what the five talent servant does, but it's always am I using what I have been given? And in this way, like are we finding ourselves aligned, that our hearts are leaning into, that we find ourselves tilting towards what God has for us, both understanding who He is and who we are in light of who He is.
What I find interesting is I found some really unique commentary from the great puritan William Ames in his book Conscience, with the Power and Cases Thereof. That's a title that only a puritan could- ... forward, um, where he actually treats this failure. So getting again to the sense of like why is it so grievous?
Like in other words, why does the action of this servant, which we've already kind of touched on, lead into basically a character attack on the servant, and why is the connection between those two things legitimate? What he basically says is that he treats the failure to use one's gifts as God has given as a violation of the ninth commandment, which is bearing false witness against God's own estimation of those gifts.
So this slothful servant, by burying his talent, effectively says, "This is not worth using." That is like the thing that God has given me, who God is Himself, I reject fully and outright. So why would that person then not be cast into outer darkness in kind of keeping with both like the, the breadth and scope of this parable, but also essentially what it's teaching about who this last, you know, servant is?
[00:48:33] Tony Arsenal: Yeah. Yeah, and you know, as you say that, I think too, um-
There's an element of this that is
Because it ties to this servant's misunderstanding of the master, and then, a- and I think you're, you're bringing Calvin in here and, and sort of the idea that our knowledge of God and our kn- knowledge of self are so, like, intertwined that it- Right ... it's almost difficult to understand which comes first.
Yes. Yes. Calvin concludes that the knowledge of God is logically prior, but he, he also acknowledges that, like, it's really tough to sort of like figure out which one is more logically prior. This servant starts from the understanding that the master is a wicked master, that he is an immoral, lazy master.
I- and it's, it's ironic. It does- the text doesn't say this, but I think it's a reasonable extrapolation. Um, the, the wicked, slothful servant projects his own wickedness and his own slothfulness onto the master, right? He, he projects that the master is a wicked man, is a hard man, and also that he's lazy. He, he does- he reaps where he doesn't sow, he gathers where he doesn't scatter.
And the action of the, of the, the character of the servant is not derived from his inaction. Right. It's his inaction that- Yes ... causes the, or it's his, his character- Character ... that drives his lack of action, right?
[00:50:12] Tony Arsenal: The good and faithful servants, they're not, and this is where we're gonna come when we come next week.
Like, this is where we're gonna go when we get to next week's. Just as maybe, like, I, I want you to listen next week, but you probably don't need to, 'cause I'm gonna give you the whole punchline here.
[00:50:27] Jesse Schwamb: Wow.
[00:50:27] Tony Arsenal: The sheep act like sheep because they're sheep.
[00:50:29] Jesse Schwamb: Right.
[00:50:30] Tony Arsenal: They don't become sheep because they do sheep things.
They do sheep things because they're sheep, and the goats do goat things because they're goats.
[00:50:37] Jesse Schwamb: Right.
[00:50:37] Tony Arsenal: The wicked, lazy servant does wicked, lazy servant things because he's a wicked lady- lazy servant, right? He buries the talent in the ground because he's a wicked, lazy servant. The good, faithful servants j- just do what good, faithful servants do.
They, they make a return on the master's talents because that's what they do, right? And I think where we have to be really careful and where, uh, the other pitfall that this parable can bring us to, and I kinda referenced it a little bit earlier, is there can be sort of this subtle works righteousness that creeps in, that we can believe if we're really good and productive for the kingdom, then that's what will earn us the good and faithful servant commendation when we, we cross into glory.
The reality is there are those who cross into glory and hear good and faithful servant, right? There are those who will hear, "Well done, good and faithful servant. Enter into the joy of your master." And there are those who will not. They will have what little they have taken away from them, and they will be cast into the outer darkness where there's weeping and gnashing of teeth, right?
That's not a statement on what we've earned. It's a statement on who we are.
[00:51:48] Jesse Schwamb: Right.
[00:51:49] Tony Arsenal: So you can either be the faithful servant who trusts the character of the Lord, who doesn't think Him to be a hard man, who reaps where He doesn't sow and gathers where He doesn't scatter. You can trust the master, and in the act of trusting the master and knowing His character, you just do what good, faithful servants do.
You work hard, you follow the servant, the master's lead, and you produce a return on what is there. Right? In, a- and we didn't talk about this too much. In effect, these servants are reflecting the nature of the master.
[00:52:23] Jesse Schwamb: That's right.
[00:52:23] Tony Arsenal: Because you don't get to the point where you can leave 100 years worth of wealth to one servant, and 40 years worth of wealth to another servant, and 20 years worth of wealth to another servant if you have not yourself been a productive, faithful person who knows how to reap and sow appropriately, right?
[00:52:42] Tony Arsenal: That is the key to this parable, is that the faithful servants image their master, and the wicked lo- like, slothful servant images what he thinks his master is This is the gospel call in this passage, right? The f- the, the faithful servants trusted their master. They trusted he was good. They trusted that he, they would be rewarded when he returned if they did a good job.
Now, he- they're not rewarded necessarily because they do a good job. I mean, I think the text kinda seems like that. Right. But, but, but He just says, "You, look, you guys are good, faithful servants." He doesn't give them, like, a share of the profits. They're not, like, stakeholders in this. He just says, "Enter into my joy."
Right? What, what does that mean? I don't know. It means enter into the same joy that the master has.
[00:53:29] Jesse Schwamb: Right.
[00:53:30] Tony Arsenal: The, what the slothful servant doesn't get, he doesn't get to participate in the joy of the master, right? What little he has is taken away from him. He's cast out of the presence of the master. He doesn't get to participate in that joy.
This is a picture, loved ones, of what the gospel is, and more poignantly, it's a picture of what it means to be lost. It's a picture w- of what it means to be outside of the grace of God, to be outside of His kingdom, is that we, we just n- not only are we wicked and sloth, which is its own kind of punishment.
We're wicked and slothful, and we don't get to participate in the joy of the master. Instead, we get this outer darkness outside of His presence. Right. We're gonna talk more about what that means, because Christ pivots to now this more still kind of analogical, but more explicit teaching on what that looks like and what it means to be a productive member of the kingdom, what it means to be a faithful servant, what it means to be a wise virgin, what it means to be the, the person who seeks the pearl of great price.
Like, all of these parables we've talked about, He now in the Olivet Discourse in verses 31 and following, He's going to give us the payout of what that actually means. What does the faithful servant look like in our real world? We're not talking parables. We're not talking images. We're talking about what it actually looks like to be the faithful servant who will enjoy the, the presence and the joy of the master.
That's what we're gonna get into next week. So-
[00:55:02] Jesse Schwamb: And so it helps us to probably- So- ... end where we began, which was with a reminder that these parables are fundamentally about how to live between those two advents. Yeah. Christ has ascended. He's gone on a journey. He will return. The master's coming back And the church lives in this meantime, and this parable defines what the meantime requires.
Active, proportional, courageous stewardship. And the Reformed tradition, following people like Augustine and the Magisterial Reformers, have always insisted, and I love this, that eschatology is not a distraction from ethics, but it's the ground of ethics itself. Yes. And so we serve faithfully- Yes and amen
because the master is returning. And next time we're gonna get to what that all looks like when he does return, when he calls everyone to give an account. What are the theological outworkings of this entire parable after he's explained what it means to live between the advents?
[00:55:56] Tony Arsenal: Yeah. Yeah, and the, the last thing I'll say before we try to figure out how to transition this into some sort of way to say- That should be fun
our tagline.
[00:56:04] Tony Arsenal: Um, it's so important for us to understand This is not a way for us to earn righteousness, right? Right. This is not a way for us to merit our justification, and, and I think this is something where there is some disagreement in the Reformed world. I want to acknowledge that. This is not a way for us to become more sanctified, right?
I don't become more sanctified because I do good works, right? Justification, sanctification are both dual benefits that we receive m- from the Holy Spirit by faith in Christ alone, right? I don't sanctify myself any more than I justify myself or any more than I'm gonna raise myself from the dead. There is a way to read this parable where even if you're couching it in frames of sanctification where somehow we're doing that to ourselves, the reality is the faithful servants do what they do because they're faithful- That's right
not because that's what makes them faithful.
[00:56:59] Jesse Schwamb: Right. Exactly.
[00:57:00] Tony Arsenal: Right? And we're g- like I said, we're gonna pay that out a little bit more next week when we talk about the sheep and the goats, but it's important for us not to let that sit. Any interpretation of this passage that has us understanding our final eschatological destination or our final sort of, like, nature as servants of God in somehow referring to the way we've served really is not a Protestant and especially not a Reformed hermeneutic of this text.
Right. At the end of the day, the wicked, slothful servant is that because that's what he is. His actions flow out of his nature, not the other way around. So I'm super excited. I mean, I think, as I said before, we're coming up to the end of Matthew. We're kind of finishing up the Matthean parables. Um, we're gonna dip into some of the more unique ones.
If I'm being honest, like, we could end this series now because the parables in Matthew really form the backbone of Christ's parabolic ministry, his parabolic teaching. Right. The other parables that we see in the other gospels really are kind of like flavor text or like, I don't know, like, uh, deleted endings, deleted scenes if you wanna use like a movie term.
They're additional commentary on the parables, the main parabolic teaching of Christ.
[00:58:20] Tony Arsenal: Um, and, and I'm, I'm excited to get there, but this has been such an edifying, just like really like soul-quenching series for me because as I've said before, we, we haven't... I have not spent as much time working through these parables verse by verse and just really, like, thinking about them deeply as I would've liked to.
So I've loved that we've really spent that time in this series. Maybe we're just gonna become like a Bible study podcast and I'm fine with that. Because like- I love it ... I love systematic theology, and that's really my wheelhouse. I love- Mm-hmm ... historical theology. I love talking about the Confessions. But there's been something so- Soul feeding, like soul quenching Yes, life-giving About just digesting God's Word together Right So I wanna echo Jesse's recommendation earlier.
If you're looking for someone to come- somewhere to come chat about this stuff, t.me/reformedbrotherhood. It's a great place to bring up biblical questions or just to digest biblical texts together. But even more so, like Take the Bible, read it, grab a friend from church and just say, "Can we just, like, work through this together and talk about it?"
[00:59:25] Jesse Schwamb: Mm. '
[00:59:25] Tony Arsenal: Cause nothing beats going through these slowly and just saying like, "Let's really think through what this text means."
[00:59:33] Jesse Schwamb: Right.
[00:59:33] Tony Arsenal: And I just don't think we do that as much as we maybe should.
[00:59:36] Jesse Schwamb: I agree with you. And of course, like, because we're people that wanna be learned, because we are readers, because we wanna understand and gather knowledge, it sometimes causes us to quickly run to other resources, not exclusively, but sometimes outside of the Holy Spirit.
So what you just said, I was really struck with the conviction of grab somebody and open up that time by just asking that the Holy Spirit, he would illuminate, captivate, open up these scriptures to you and to those with whom you're speaking, which is often how we pray for this conversation, that that's exactly what God would do.
And so we hope that he's doing that. We hope there was something in here, and if there was anything good, all of that belongs to God. The mistakes are clearly ours. But we hope that you will take this conversation and pull it into your own life. I have to ask, when you were talking about what we're gonna talk about next week, did you actually say we're gonna, like, pay it forward?
Did you... Was that, like, a pun that you were also using, or did that just happen?
[01:00:30] Tony Arsenal: No, I think it just happened. I don't think I meant to even say that. We'll just call that providence.
[01:00:34] Jesse Schwamb: Oh, so... That was so good. I love that.
[01:00:37] Jesse Schwamb: There's one other place you can go and hang out, and that is the podcast does have a website.
Sometimes we don't talk about it, but that's because it's, like, the best-kept secret on the entire internet. I'm not being parabolic or hyperbolic at all. And if you go to reformedbrotherhood.com, what you're gonna do is find that all the episodes, all of them, are living right there. They're for you. They're just there hanging out, waiting for you to search them with keywords for something that we've probably talked about maybe eight or 10 years ago.
It's all there. You can find it. So if it's been a while and you've thought, "You know what? I wonder if there's ever been a conversation about this," if you even just wanna play the game, pick a word and go in there- ... and see what pops up. You can go find all those. And what you'll also discover is that shockingly, they're all free.
There's no cost- Yeah ... to those whatsoever. And that happens because so many loved ones join us in making sure that all the costs are covered. So my last commendation to you all is if you're thinking, "You know what? I've been listening for a little while," or maybe it's the first time, and you think, "I wanna make sure that this keeps going," we'd be so thankful if you wanna support the ministry in doing that.
And you can just go to the website, and there's a little link. You'll find your way. But it is available to those who would say, "You know what? I'd like to make sure that this is available to everybody without cost, without price, with no money. Come and listen." And that's how it's always gonna be here.
You'll notice there is no insertion for a weird purple mattress commercial. Nor will there ever be. I mean, unless they wanna give us a lot of money maybe, maybe we, maybe we would accept that. But no, we will not do that, Purple. We will never do that. You
[01:02:10] Tony Arsenal: could not give me enough money to endorse Purple Mattress-
even though I'm sitting on a Purple Mattress and it's wicked comfortable. I get zero dollars for that.
[01:02:19] Jesse Schwamb: Zero. Zero. So I-
[01:02:21] Tony Arsenal: Unless they wanna give us some money. If somehow you are an executive at Purple and wanna give us some money, we will take your money.
[01:02:27] Jesse Schwamb: A- and listen, we will not bury it. We will, we will use it-
as best we can, by God's grace, for His lovely and conquering, overwhelmingly filled with love kingdom. We will absolutely do that. And of course, we're gonna come to the real conclusion of all of this talk, all of this parable stuff next time. So even though Tony gave us, like, the reverse tease and the permission not to listen to that episode
[01:02:51] Tony Arsenal: Please listen.
Please listen to that episode.
[01:02:54] Jesse Schwamb: It's gonna be good. I can say right now it's gonna be good because God is good.
[01:02:58] Tony Arsenal: Yeah. I, I can say that God is good because we're the worst podcasters ever- That's true ... in terms of, like, our call to action is always the very last thing we do. Uh, we- we're always just, like, like, uh, the fact that anybody gives us any money is a, is a miracle- We break all the rules
because nobody who is listening to this show is still logged in to our episode. So just to wrap it up, because I don't know where we're going, I don't know how to finish this. Take us home. I'm just gonna say, Jesse, until next time, honor everyone.
[01:03:26] Jesse Schwamb: Love the brotherhood.