Since I was not sure what the traditional view of this verse was, and only had my own impressions of it, I looked it up in a good commentary by R.T. France. He commented about the same epigram in another location (Matt.13:12):
The laws of capitalist economics (capital breeds income; lack o of capital spells ruin) serve as a 'parable' of spiritual enlightenment. The 'secrets' of God's kingdom can be grasped only by those who already have the spiritual capacity to receive them, i.e. the disciples as opposed to ‘those outside’. Thus the division of v. 11 is here reinforced. Logically, that which one has not cannot be taken away, but the paradox is vivid and effective. It is probably unwise to be too specific in applying the details of an epigram of this nature which occurs in different contexts (cf. 25:29, and the different position in Mk. 4 and Lk. 8), but perhaps the ‘taking away’ refers here to the ultimate uselessness of a ‘religion’ which is not that of the kingdom of heaven.
Commenting on the application of the statement in Matthew 13:12, R.V.G. Tasker writes:
When such people [those with little spiritual insight or interest] heard a parable about the kingdom it would therefore be for them an interesting but pointless story conveying no revelation of divine truth. The disciples, on the other hand, had already grasped something of the supernatural character of their Master and of the kingdom He came to inaugurate [they were thus "those who have]. To them therefore He could explain the truth embodied in them [more would be given], as in fact He did in the interpretations here recorded of the parables of the sower and the tares. The result was that their powers of spiritual understanding developed and the mysteries of the kingdom became clearer to them
I think these explanations are correct, though neither author comments on the same statement in its location at Matthew 25:29, and it does not there seem to have precisely the same application. That is, it does not appear to be talking about the stewarding of
insight (though, in fact, it may be! The "talents" may be a tangible representation for spiritual knowledge, though we usually apply the parable otherwise).
I think the basic lesson of the statement is that those who make good use of early opportunities, and thus have something to show for them, are in the position to be trusted with more of the same. That appears to be the lesson of the parable in Matthew 25. Yet those who have squandered early advantages may later find not only that they have not increased, but that they have vanished.
In the case about which you are concerned (a "friend" who has walked away from earlier light and lost certain opportunities as a result), I would not think the statement should be applied—not
yet, anyway. As long as one is breathing, new opportunities still exist, though some may have been lost forever. I understand the parable of the talents to be describing a reckoning at the end of life (at the judgment). Thus the wasted opportunity in the parable speaks of the fruitlessness of an entire lifetime, not just several years. One who has squandered a portion of life may never recover those particular opportunities that were passed up but, upon repentance, he can seize the remaining opportunities of life and make something good of it yet. Remember the prodigal son. He came to his senses before it was two late. There were permanent losses suffered for his prodigal years (he never recovered the money he had foolishly dispensed), but he was given a robe and a ring, and restored to his father for the remainder of his days.
