All who are not taken up to meet the Lord in the air when He comes will be left behind and killed.

[Spiritual Israelite]

The enemies that were slayed when the noblemen returns- are the ones from the beginning of the parable, who reject the nobleman PRIOR to him going on a journey.

Yes, but the parable relates to Jesus giving rewards and punishments, so it's talking about them being brought before Him when He returns to sit on His throne to judge all people, as we can see portrayed in Matthew 25:31-46. So, that parable in Luke 19 is not referring to their physical destruction that occurred in 70 AD, but rather is referring to them being brought before His throne at the judgment in the future when He returns and then being cast into the lake of fire prepared for the devil and his angels.

 

[Scott Downey]

The enemies that were slayed when the noblemen returns- are the ones from the beginning of the parable, who reject the nobleman PRIOR to him going on a journey.

It is a parable, does not have to be an exact fit.
The main point is Christ destroys all His enemies at His return

That means those who are unrighteous, anyone who does not believe in Him or know God.

Now what do you make of this, in v30, anyone who is not with Christ is Christ's enemy when He returns

29 Or how can one enter a strong man’s house and plunder his goods, unless he first binds the strong man? And then he will plunder his house.

30 He who is not with Me is against Me, and he who does not gather with Me scatters abroad.

*************
There are no neutral persons.
Example of this

Ephesians 2
And you He made alive, who were dead in trespasses and sins, 2 in which you once walked according to the [a]course of this world, according to the prince of the power of the air, the spirit who now works in the sons of disobedience,

3 among whom also we all once conducted ourselves in the lusts of our flesh, fulfilling the desires of the flesh and of the mind, and were by nature children of wrath, just as the others.

 

[claninja]

Yes, but the parable relates to Jesus giving rewards and punishments, so it's talking about them being brought before Him when He returns to sit on His throne to judge all people, as we can see portrayed in Matthew 25:31-46. So, that parable in Luke 19 is not referring to their physical destruction that occurred in 70 AD, but rather is referring to them being brought before His throne at the judgment in the future when He returns and then being cast into the lake of fire prepared for the devil and his angels.

The point of the parable can be found in luke 19:11

• As they heard these things, he proceeded to tell a parable, BECAUSE he was near to Jerusalem, and because they supposed that the kingdom of God was to appear immediately.

Jesus was on his way to Jerusalem with a crowd. The crowd supposed the kingdom was going to manifest when Jesus arrived to Jerusalem (triumphal entry). Jesus’ parable demonstrates the kingdom was not to manifest immediately then, because the nobleman had to first go to a far away country ( death, resurrection, ascension, also an allegory to Herod archelaus). the parable is then followed by Christ’s triumphal entry, where the kingdom did not immediately manifest, where his disciples claim his kingship (vs28-38), the Pharisees reject this kingship (vs39-40) and then his warning that the days would come when Jerusalem would be utterly destroyed (vs 41-44).

So sure the parable contains a message about rewards/punishments for growing (or not growing) the nobleman’s property while away. BUT the surrounding context does NOT set that up as the main point of the parable.

Vs 11 addresses that the main point of the parable was that the kingdom was not to manifest immediately upon entry into Jerusalem. THEN the surrounding context of vs 28-44 focuses on the triumphal entry, Christs rejection by the Pharisees, and his warning of future destruction on Jerusalem - the very things mentioned in the parable. The surrounding context does NOT focus on the rewards for believers. So I completely disagree with you ignoring the surrounding context, and applying a different gospel writer’s passage (Matthew 25) in order to change the context and main point of the parable and align it with your eschatological belief.

 

[claninja]

It is a parable, does not have to be an exact fit.
The main point is Christ destroys all His enemies at His return

That means those who are unrighteous, anyone who does not believe in Him or know God.

Now what do you make of this, in v30, anyone who is not with Christ is Christ's enemy when He returns

29 Or how can one enter a strong man’s house and plunder his goods, unless he first binds the strong man? And then he will plunder his house.

30 He who is not with Me is against Me, and he who does not gather with Me scatters abroad.

*************
There are no neutral persons.
Example of this

Ephesians 2
And you He made alive, who were dead in trespasses and sins, 2 in which you once walked according to the [a]course of this world, according to the prince of the power of the air, the spirit who now works in the sons of disobedience,

3 among whom also we all once conducted ourselves in the lusts of our flesh, fulfilling the desires of the flesh and of the mind, and were by nature children of wrath, just as the others.

That’s not the main point of the parable - see post #123

 

[Scott Downey]

That’s not the main point of the parable - see post #123

We got a good testimony from John the Baptist of what Christ will do in v12, meaning no survivors left who are of this world.
Since those of the world do not bear good fruit to God, all of them will be cut off from the Vine, separated from God and His kingdom and thrown into fire along with all hypocrites.

4 Now John himself was clothed in camel’s hair, with a leather belt around his waist; and his food was locusts and wild honey. 5 Then Jerusalem, all Judea, and all the region around the Jordan went out to him 6 and were baptized by him in the Jordan, confessing their sins.

7 But when he saw many of the Pharisees and Sadducees coming to his baptism, he said to them, “Brood of vipers! Who warned you to flee from the wrath to come? 8 Therefore bear fruits worthy of repentance, 9 and do not think to say to yourselves, ‘We have Abraham as our father.’ For I say to you that God is able to raise up children to Abraham from these stones. 10 And even now the ax is laid to the root of the trees. Therefore every tree which does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire. 11 I indeed baptize you with water unto repentance, but He who is coming after me is mightier than I, whose sandals I am not worthy to carry. He will baptize you with the Holy Spirit [a]and fire.

12 His winnowing fan is in His hand, and He will thoroughly clean out His threshing floor, and gather His wheat into the barn; but He will burn up the chaff with unquenchable fire.”

Matthew 7:19
Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire.

The fate of wicked servants

48 But if that evil servant says in his heart, ‘My master is delaying [j]his coming,’ 49 and begins to beat his fellow servants, and to eat and drink with the drunkards, 50 the master of that servant will come on a day when he is not looking for him and at an hour that he is not aware of, 51 and will cut him in two and appoint him his portion with the hypocrites. There shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth.

The Master will do this without mercy. All people actually deserve this fate as all people were just as bad.
But God showed to some His mercy and his grace, granting them to believe in Christ, giving them ears to hear what the Spirit says.

 

[claninja]

We got a good testimony from John the Baptist of what Christ will do in v12, meaning no survivors left who are of this world.
Since those of the world do not bear good fruit to God, all of them will be cut off from the Vine, separated from God and His kingdom and thrown into fire along with all hypocrites.

4 Now John himself was clothed in camel’s hair, with a leather belt around his waist; and his food was locusts and wild honey. 5 Then Jerusalem, all Judea, and all the region around the Jordan went out to him 6 and were baptized by him in the Jordan, confessing their sins.

7 But when he saw many of the Pharisees and Sadducees coming to his baptism, he said to them, “Brood of vipers! Who warned you to flee from the wrath to come? 8 Therefore bear fruits worthy of repentance, 9 and do not think to say to yourselves, ‘We have Abraham as our father.’ For I say to you that God is able to raise up children to Abraham from these stones. 10 And even now the ax is laid to the root of the trees. Therefore every tree which does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire. 11 I indeed baptize you with water unto repentance, but He who is coming after me is mightier than I, whose sandals I am not worthy to carry. He will baptize you with the Holy Spirit [a]and fire.

12 His winnowing fan is in His hand, and He will thoroughly clean out His threshing floor, and gather His wheat into the barn; but He will burn up the chaff with unquenchable fire.”

Matthew 7:19
Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire.

The fate of wicked servants

48 But if that evil servant says in his heart, ‘My master is delaying [j]his coming,’ 49 and begins to beat his fellow servants, and to eat and drink with the drunkards, 50 the master of that servant will come on a day when he is not looking for him and at an hour that he is not aware of, 51 and will cut him in two and appoint him his portion with the hypocrites. There shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth.

The Master will do this without mercy. All people actually deserve this fate as all people were just as bad.
But God showed to some His mercy and his grace, granting them to believe in Christ, giving them ears to hear what the Spirit says.

This doesn’t address post #123

 

[Scott Downey]

This doesn’t address post #123

OK, but it is just further proof that Christ slays all His enemies.
Can we agree on that?

The Luke 19 parable has many things going on there

 

[claninja]

OK, but it is just further proof that Christ slays all His enemies.
Can we agree on that?

The Luke 19 parable has many things going on there

Address the context of Luke 19, then maybe I’ll look closer at the dozen other verses you posted that weren’t Luke 19

 

[Scott Downey]

Address the context of Luke 19, then maybe I’ll look closer at the dozen other verses you posted that weren’t Luke 19

You should look at them anyway as they are relevant to the OP subject

Christ slaying his enemies is also part of the context of that parable, it is part of the truth in the story.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

The point of the parable can be found in luke 19:11

• As they heard these things, he proceeded to tell a parable, BECAUSE he was near to Jerusalem, and because they supposed that the kingdom of God was to appear immediately.

Jesus was on his way to Jerusalem with a crowd. The crowd supposed the kingdom was going to manifest when Jesus arrived to Jerusalem (triumphal entry). Jesus’ parable demonstrates the kingdom was not to manifest immediately then, because the nobleman had to first go to a far away country ( death, resurrection, ascension, also an allegory to Herod archelaus). the parable is then followed by Christ’s triumphal entry, where the kingdom did not immediately manifest, where his disciples claim his kingship (vs28-38), the Pharisees reject this kingship (vs39-40) and then his warning that the days would come when Jerusalem would be utterly destroyed (vs 41-44).

So sure the parable contains a message about rewards/punishments for growing (or not growing) the nobleman’s property while away. BUT the surrounding context does NOT set that up as the main point of the parable.

Vs 11 addresses that the main point of the parable was that the kingdom was not to manifest immediately upon entry into Jerusalem. THEN the surrounding context of vs 28-44 focuses on the triumphal entry, Christs rejection by the Pharisees, and his warning of future destruction on Jerusalem - the very things mentioned in the parable. The surrounding context does NOT focus on the rewards for believers. So I completely disagree with you ignoring the surrounding context, and applying a different gospel writer’s passage (Matthew 25) in order to change the context and main point of the parable and align it with your eschatological belief.

I completely disagree with you as well. I'm not convinced at all by your argument here. The parable clearly does focus partly on rewards for believers, so nothing you say can change that. The parable does relate to the same event as Jesus talked about in Matthew 25:31-46 because it has to do with an event that involves rewards for believers and punishments for unbelievers.

 

[claninja]

I completely disagree with you as well. I'm not convinced at all by your argument here. The parable clearly does focus partly on rewards for believers, so nothing you say can change that. The parable does relate to the same event as Jesus talked about in Matthew 25:31-46 because it has to do with an event that involves rewards for believers and punishments for unbelievers.

so the context surrounding the parable in Luke 19, doesn’t mention the reason the parable is given is because Jesus’ followers thought the kingdom would manifest immediately?

So the context surrounding the parable doesn’t include the Pharisees rejecting Christ as king, and Jesus declaring that Jerusalem would be utterly destroyed and its inhabitants slaughtered for not recognizing Christ?

You keep repeating Matthew 25, which doesn’t contain elements of the citizens rejecting the nobleman nor the mention of them being slaughtered for rejecting him as king. Additionally, Matthew 25 is nestled in between 2 parables of judgement and reward. Matthew and Luke are making 2 completely different points.

 

[Davidpt]

The point of the parable can be found in luke 19:11

• As they heard these things, he proceeded to tell a parable, BECAUSE he was near to Jerusalem, and because they supposed that the kingdom of God was to appear immediately.

Jesus was on his way to Jerusalem with a crowd. The crowd supposed the kingdom was going to manifest when Jesus arrived to Jerusalem (triumphal entry). Jesus’ parable demonstrates the kingdom was not to manifest immediately then, because the nobleman had to first go to a far away country ( death, resurrection, ascension, also an allegory to Herod archelaus). the parable is then followed by Christ’s triumphal entry, where the kingdom did not immediately manifest, where his disciples claim his kingship (vs28-38), the Pharisees reject this kingship (vs39-40) and then his warning that the days would come when Jerusalem would be utterly destroyed (vs 41-44).

So sure the parable contains a message about rewards/punishments for growing (or not growing) the nobleman’s property while away. BUT the surrounding context does NOT set that up as the main point of the parable.

Vs 11 addresses that the main point of the parable was that the kingdom was not to manifest immediately upon entry into Jerusalem. THEN the surrounding context of vs 28-44 focuses on the triumphal entry, Christs rejection by the Pharisees, and his warning of future destruction on Jerusalem - the very things mentioned in the parable. The surrounding context does NOT focus on the rewards for believers. So I completely disagree with you ignoring the surrounding context, and applying a different gospel writer’s passage (Matthew 25) in order to change the context and main point of the parable and align it with your eschatological belief.

I would argue that nothing in Luke 19:11-27 supports a Preterist interpretation nor an Amil interpretation. For certain, not the former.

One reason why it doesn't support Amil is because Amil has no days following the 2nd coming but prior to the fulfillment of 1 Corithians 15:28 that can explain the authority His faithful servants are rewarded with when He returns. As if it makes sense, that the same day He rewards them with this authority, that very same day He takes it away from them.

Or, as if it makes sense, once 1 Corithians 15:28 is fulfilled, these faithful servants still have this authority over something and that they have this authority over this something forever since there would be no time period with a beginning and an end once 1 Corithians 15:28 is fulfilled, in order to prevent this authority over something from continuing forever.

One reason why nothing can support Preterism is the fact there is obviously a huge gap between His leaving and His returning. And that His returning demands that it is meaning literally, bodily, the same way His leaving demands that it is meaning literally, bodily. He literally bodily left the planet. It, therefore, stands to reason that when He returns, He returns bodily. Except no such bodily return ever occurred in the first century once He left bodily(thus His ascension), nor to this day.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

so the context surrounding the parable in Luke 19, doesn’t mention the reason the parable is given is because Jesus’ followers thought the kingdom would manifest immediately?

So the context surrounding the parable doesn’t include the Pharisees rejecting Christ as king, and Jesus declaring that Jerusalem would be utterly destroyed and its inhabitants slaughtered for not recognizing Christ?

You keep repeating Matthew 25, which doesn’t contain elements of the citizens rejecting the nobleman nor the mention of them being slaughtered for rejecting him as king. Additionally, Matthew 25 is nestled in between 2 parables of judgement and reward. Matthew and Luke are making 2 completely different points.

Why are you trying to make it as if rewards for believers are not part of the parable when that is so clearly the case? No matter what the surrounding verses say, you can't deny that. You understand that any of those Pharisees who rejected Christ and never repented will have to stand before Him one day to give an account of themselves and they will then be cast into the lake of fire, don't you?

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

I would argue that nothing in Luke 19:11-27 supports a Preterist interpretation nor an Amil interpretation. For certain, not the former.

One reason why it doesn't support Amil is because Amil has no days following the 2nd coming but prior to the fulfillment of 1 Corithians 15:28 that can explain the authority His faithful servants are rewarded with when He returns. As if it makes sense, that the same day He rewards them with this authority, that very same day He takes it away from them.

Or, as if it makes sense, once 1 Corithians 15:28 is fulfilled, these faithful servants still have this authority over something and that they have this authority over this something forever since there would be no time period with a beginning and an end once 1 Corithians 15:28 is fulfilled, in order to prevent this authority over something from continuing forever.

How does 1 Corinthians 15:28 indicate that those faithful servants can't have authority at that point? Please explain in detail what you mean by that.

 

[claninja]

Why are you trying to make it as if rewards for believers are not part of the parable when that is so clearly the case? No matter what the surrounding verses say, you can't deny that. You understand that any of those Pharisees who rejected Christ and never repented will have to stand before Him one day to give an account of themselves and they will then be cast into the lake of fire, don't you?

I never said that rewards for believers were not part of the parable. My argument was that the rewards for believers were not the main point of the parable based on the surrounding context, IN LUKE. The main point is clearly stated in vs 11: the kingdom was not to immediately manifest upon his arrival into Jerusalem - instead Christ triumphantly arrives, but has his kingship denied by the Pharisees, which is followed by a prophesy of Jerusalem’s ultimate destruction and slaughter.

You understand that any of those Pharisees who rejected Christ and never repented will have to stand before Him one day to give an account of themselves and they will then be cast into the lake of fire, don't you?

That’s not included in the surrounding context. The surrounding context has the Pharisees reject Christs kingship, followed by Christ prophesying the destruction and slaughter of Jerusalem - the very elements that Luke adds to his parable, which are NOT found in the Matthew account.

Why should I ignore the surrounding context in Luke?

 

[claninja]

I would argue that nothing in Luke 19:11-27 supports a Preterist interpretation nor an Amil interpretation. For certain, not the former.

One reason why it doesn't support Amil is because Amil has no days following the 2nd coming but prior to the fulfillment of 1 Corithians 15:28 that can explain the authority His faithful servants are rewarded with when He returns. As if it makes sense, that the same day He rewards them with this authority, that very same day He takes it away from them.

Or, as if it makes sense, once 1 Corithians 15:28 is fulfilled, these faithful servants still have this authority over something and that they have this authority over this something forever since there would be no time period with a beginning and an end once 1 Corithians 15:28 is fulfilled, in order to prevent this authority over something from continuing forever.

One reason why nothing can support Preterism is the fact there is obviously a huge gap between His leaving and His returning. And that His returning demands that it is meaning literally, bodily, the same way His leaving demands that it is meaning literally, bodily. He literally bodily left the planet. It, therefore, stands to reason that when He returns, He returns bodily. Except no such bodily return ever occurred in the first century once He left bodily(thus His ascension), nor to this day.

The problem with your argument, is that you are ignoring the main point of the parable, which is found in vs 11 and the surrounding context of 28-41.

The reason Jesus tells this parable is because the crowd that was following him to Jerusalem, thought that the kingdom was to manifest immediately upon his arrival to the city(vs 11). Instead, while Jesus does arrive to Jerusalem triumphantly, the kingdom is not manifested immediately, the Pharisees reject his kingship, and Jesus prophesied of Jerusalem’s destruction and slaughter (vs 28-44) - these very elements are included in the Luke account of the parable!

Your presuppositions on “rewards” and “bodily return”, which are not discussed at all in the surrounding context, are completely missing the point of the parable.

Since you can find scholarly amil and premil commentary that agree that slaughter of the citizens is a reference to the destruction of Jerusalem in 70ad, I dont find it convincing to argue Luke 19 supports or doesn’t support certain millennial views

 

[Scott Downey]

so the context surrounding the parable in Luke 19, doesn’t mention the reason the parable is given is because Jesus’ followers thought the kingdom would manifest immediately?

So the context surrounding the parable doesn’t include the Pharisees rejecting Christ as king, and Jesus declaring that Jerusalem would be utterly destroyed and its inhabitants slaughtered for not recognizing Christ?

You keep repeating Matthew 25, which doesn’t contain elements of the citizens rejecting the nobleman nor the mention of them being slaughtered for rejecting him as king. Additionally, Matthew 25 is nestled in between 2 parables of judgement and reward. Matthew and Luke are making 2 completely different points.

My view is citizens live in their country. And the country is owned by God. And at some point, God makes changes. We can call it judgments. The psalm points out all souls belong to God, for in him we live, move and have our being, for He is our Creator.

as does Ezekiel say
Ezekiel 18:4
“Behold, all souls are Mine; The soul of the father As well as the soul of the son is Mine; The soul who sins shall die.

His being our Creator does not mean He saves everyone.


As Psalm 24 says

The earth is the Lord’s, and all its fullness,
The world and those who dwell therein.
2 For He has founded it upon the seas,
And established it upon the [a]waters.
3 Who may ascend into the hill of the Lord?
Or who may stand in His holy place?
4 He who has clean hands and a pure heart,
Who has not lifted up his soul to an idol,
Nor sworn deceitfully.
5 He shall receive blessing from the Lord,
And righteousness from the God of his salvation.
6 This is Jacob, the generation of those who seek Him,
Who seek Your face. Selah
7 Lift up your heads, O you gates!
And be lifted up, you everlasting doors!
And the King of glory shall come in.
8 Who is this King of glory?
The Lord strong and mighty,
The Lord mighty in battle.
9 Lift up your heads, O you gates!
Lift up, you everlasting doors!
And the King of glory shall come in.
10 Who is this King of glory?
The Lord of hosts,
He is the King of glory. Selah

****************

So God at some future point in history cleans out His house and judges the people who live in His land.
Psalm 24 describes who can inherit and live with God when He shows up, as in when Christ returns, everything will be changed

 

[claninja]

My view is citizens live in their country. And the country is owned by God. And at some point, God makes changes. We can call it judgments. The psalm points out all souls belong to God, for in him we live, move and have our being, for He is our Creator.

as does Ezekiel say
Ezekiel 18:4
“Behold, all souls are Mine; The soul of the father As well as the soul of the son is Mine; The soul who sins shall die.

His being our Creator does not mean He saves everyone.


As Psalm 24 says

The earth is the Lord’s, and all its fullness,
The world and those who dwell therein.
2 For He has founded it upon the seas,
And established it upon the [a]waters.
3 Who may ascend into the hill of the Lord?
Or who may stand in His holy place?
4 He who has clean hands and a pure heart,
Who has not lifted up his soul to an idol,
Nor sworn deceitfully.
5 He shall receive blessing from the Lord,
And righteousness from the God of his salvation.
6 This is Jacob, the generation of those who seek Him,
Who seek Your face. Selah
7 Lift up your heads, O you gates!
And be lifted up, you everlasting doors!
And the King of glory shall come in.
8 Who is this King of glory?
The Lord strong and mighty,
The Lord mighty in battle.
9 Lift up your heads, O you gates!
Lift up, you everlasting doors!
And the King of glory shall come in.
10 Who is this King of glory?
The Lord of hosts,
He is the King of glory. Selah

****************

So God at some future point in history cleans out His house and judges the people who live in His land.
Psalm 24 describes who can inherit and live with God when He shows up, as in when Christ returns, everything will be changed

This doesn’t address the surrounding context of the parable in Luke 19

 

[Scott Downey]

This doesn’t address the surrounding context of the parable in Luke 19

When Christ returns, that is a world changing event.
Christ already said anyone who does not believe is condemned already as they have not believed
So, when He slays them in the parable, who is being killed? Yes, unbelieving Jews but also unbelieving gentiles too.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

I never said that rewards for believers were not part of the parable. My argument was that the rewards for believers were not the main point of the parable based on the surrounding context, IN LUKE. The main point is clearly stated in vs 11: the kingdom was not to immediately manifest upon his arrival into Jerusalem - instead Christ triumphantly arrives, but has his kingship denied by the Pharisees, which is followed by a prophesy of Jerusalem’s ultimate destruction and slaughter.

So, what do you believe the rewards are related to exactly that are given out at that time?

That’s not included in the surrounding context. The surrounding context has the Pharisees reject Christs kingship, followed by Christ prophesying the destruction and slaughter of Jerusalem - the very elements that Luke adds to his parable, which are NOT found in the Matthew account.

Why should I ignore the surrounding context in Luke?

Why should you ignore that it involves rewards being given out? Jesus had their ultimate demise in mind on the day of judgment there rather than their physical destruction. Do you not believe in a future judgment where all people have to give an account of themselves?