Parable of the minas

[Lambano]

What if the Saints don't have any aspirations for getting into Management?

 

[grafted branch]

One thing Premil does solve that Amil doesn't, is that this authority, whatever it might look like, can't get fulfilled in a single day, nor does it make sense to still be exercising this authority for ever once God is all in all. IMO, this authority fits a reigning with Christ theme. Except we can't apply it to the here and now spiritually, the fact the return after receiving the kingdom has not occurred yet. And that it is after He returns that He gives faithful servants this authority over something. Granted, per Amil chronology appears to be an illusion in a lot of cases, so maybe not every case. But how can there not be chronology involving going away to receive a kingdom for Himself, then returning after receiving it?

Returning to where, though? Some Amils have the entire planet engulfed in flames at the time. And we know for a fact nothing in the parable can be meaning post the GWTJ, the fact the parable still has death taking place after He returns.

I agree with your post, although I think Jesus received the kingdom just after the cross. I agree the parable fits with Christ reigning and I don’t think it’s spiritual cities that are given out.

I suppose it would make a good thread to discuss whether Jesus has received the kingdom yet or not.

 

[Ziggy]

It's about investment.

I was thinking about this very parable yesterday.
Funny how that works out isn't it.

Why didn't you put it in the bank so I could collect the principle with interest?
That is the question.

But what is it you have been given and what can you invest to get a good return?

Some 30 fold some 60 and some 100.. where is the answer?

Matt:
Mat 13:23
But he that received seed into the good ground is he that heareth the word, and understandeth it; which also beareth fruit, and bringeth forth, some an hundredfold, some sixty, some thirty.

Mark:
Mar 4:8
And other fell on good ground, and did yield fruit that sprang up and increased; and brought forth, some thirty, and some sixty, and some an hundred.

What is the commission?

To tend the garden and prepare it for harvest.


And be careful of the thorns and thistles.

Hugs

 

[grafted branch]

What if the Saints don't have any aspirations for getting into Management?

That’s a good question, although in the parable there are more cities than servants so if the servants represent all the true believers it begs the question of who’s in the cities they have authority over.

 

[grafted branch]

It's about investment.

I was thinking about this very parable yesterday.
Funny how that works out isn't it.

Why didn't you put it in the bank so I could collect the principle with interest?
That is the question.

But what is it you have been given and what can you invest to get a good return?

Some 30 fold some 60 and some 100.. where is the answer?

Matt:
Mat 13:23
But he that received seed into the good ground is he that heareth the word, and understandeth it; which also beareth fruit, and bringeth forth, some an hundredfold, some sixty, some thirty.

Mark:
Mar 4:8
And other fell on good ground, and did yield fruit that sprang up and increased; and brought forth, some thirty, and some sixty, and some an hundred.

What is the commission?

To tend the garden and prepare it for harvest.


And be careful of the thorns and thistles.

Hugs

Saying we are currently supposed to multiply our mina seems to be a straightforward interpretation, but what about the cities that are handed out after the servants have invested their minas (or not)? Why would there be more cities than servants in the parable? Would that mean that they have authority over non-servants at that time?

 

[Davidpt]

I agree with your post, although I think Jesus received the kingdom just after the cross. I agree the parable fits with Christ reigning and I don’t think it’s spiritual cities that are given out.

I suppose it would make a good thread to discuss whether Jesus has received the kingdom yet or not.

Jesus has already received the kingdom. That is not in dispute, at least not by me. What He hasn't done yet is return after having received the kingdom. And that this authority is handed out after He returns.

I think the following might be relevant here.

Mark 13:34 For the Son of man is as a man taking a far journey, who left his house, and gave authority to his servants, and to every man his work, and commanded the porter to watch.

 

[Ziggy]

That’s a good question, although in the parable there are more cities than servants so if the servants represent all the true believers it begs the question of who’s in the cities they have authority over.

Consider Paul. One servant who is responsible for beginning many churches of the faithful.
Think of churches and cities.
Paul invested much of his blood sweat and tears by spreading the gospel.
He became the Ambassador and sent many letters to the heads of those churches.

Paul was given seed, Apollo watered, but God gave the increase.
And where your heart is that's where your treasure will be also.
But if you bury it in the sand...
well..
the parable speaks for itself.

Hugs

 

[grafted branch]

Consider Paul. One servant who is responsible for beginning many churches of the faithful.
Think of churches and cities.
Paul invested much of his blood sweat and tears by spreading the gospel.
He became the Ambassador and sent many letters to the heads of those churches.

Paul was given seed, Apollo watered, but God gave the increase.
And where your heart is that's where your treasure will be also.
But if you bury it in the sand...
well..
the parable speaks for itself.

Hugs

So do you think the cities have been given out already according to the parable?

 

[Ziggy]

Why would there be more cities than servants in the parable? Would that mean that they have authority over non-servants at that time?

This reminded me of Peter going fishing.
The servant is Peter of course, but it's about the fish.
One fisherman and a net.
The net is the city.

It also reminds of Deuteronomy chapter 9.

The difference between the Parable and the story in Deuteronomy is, the latter is sent to save where the former was sent to destroy.
Jesus had already traversed the cities round about Jerusalem planting seeds. Removing sin. Promoting Faith.
It was now the disciples turn to go and gather the harvest and present it to the Master when he came back.

Mar 1:17
And Jesus said unto them, Come ye after me, and I will make you to become fishers of men.

Just thinking..
Hugs

 

[Ziggy]

So do you think the cities have been given out already according to the parable?

I don't suppose we will know that until He returns.

Hugs

 

[Davidpt]

So do you think the cities have been given out already according to the parable?

What he seems to be missing if that is what he is implying about these cities, is this. Jesus gives authority over something twice. One time before He leaves, the 2nd time when He returns. And that these can't be running in parallel since 'have gone away', 'and have returned', can't be meaning the same thing if the former involves Jesus being bodily in heaven, and that the latter involves Jesus being bodily on the earth.

Some might disagree that when He returns that it means He is bodily on the earth again.

What do they think return means here then? To return to somewhere you never were to begin with? Or to return to somewhere you were previously, then left, then come back to? I would assume everyone should agree that it's the latter. If by His return Amils have Him conducting a GWTJ in another realm, how could He be returning to there when He never left from that location to begin with? He left the earth.

 

[Ziggy]

Luk 19:13
And he called his ten servants, and delivered them ten pounds, and said unto them, Occupy till I come.

Luk 19:21
For I feared thee, because thou art an austere man: thou takest up that thou layedst not down, and reapest that thou didst not sow.

1Co 9:9
For it is written in the law of Moses, Thou shalt not muzzle the mouth of the ox that treadeth out the corn. Doth God take care for oxen?
1Co 9:10
Or saith he it altogether for our sakes? For our sakes, no doubt, this is written: that he that ploweth should plow in hope; and that he that thresheth in hope should be partaker of his hope.

1Co 9:17
For if I do this thing willingly, I have a reward: but if against my will, a dispensation of the gospel is committed unto me.
1Co 9:18
What is my reward then? Verily that, when I preach the gospel, I may make the gospel of Christ without charge, that I abuse not my power in the gospel.
1Co 9:19
For though I be free from all men, yet have I made myself servant unto all, that I might gain the more.

Luk 19:26
For I say unto you, That unto every one which hath shall be given; and from him that hath not, even that he hath shall be taken away from him.

Hope, Faith and Charity.

still thinking
hugs

 

[grafted branch]

What he seems to be missing if that is what he is implying about these cities, is this. Jesus gives authority over something twice. One time before He leaves, the 2nd time when He returns. And that these can't be running in parallel since 'have gone away', 'and have returned', can't be meaning the same thing if the former involves Jesus being bodily in heaven, and that the latter involves Jesus being bodily on the earth.

Some might disagree that when He returns that it means He is bodily on the earth again.

What do they think return means here then? To return to somewhere you never were to begin with? Or to return to somewhere you were previously, then left, then come back to? I would assume everyone should agree that it's the latter. If by His return Amils have Him conducting a GWTJ in another realm, how could He be returning to there when He never left from that location to begin with? He left the earth.

Yea, I don’t think he has a definitive answer. That’s ok, I’m not trying to pin anyone down to a specific interpretation as I don’t have one myself. I’m really just trying to get some ideas about what others are doing with this parable.

 

[Jay Ross]

So who do you see handing out the cities, Christ or Satan?

Both the Parable of the Talents and the Minas is telling us what Satan's plans are for when he is imprisoned in the Bottomless Pit for 1,000 years along with the Beast and the Little Horn who were also judged at the same time.


PS: - Satan is very crafty in hiding himself from being the main character in both of these parables.

 

[grafted branch]

Both the Parable of the Talents and the Minas is telling us what Satan's plans are for when he is imprisoned in the Bottomless Pit for 1,000 years along with the Beast and the Little Horn who were also judged at the same time.


PS: - Satan is very crafty in hiding himself from being the main character in both of these parables.

Luke 19:12 He said therefore, A certain nobleman went into a far country to receive for himself a kingdom, and to return.

If Satan is the nobleman what kingdom does he receive? Aren’t the kingdoms of this world already his?

 

[Davidpt]

Yea, I don’t think he has a definitive answer. That’s ok, I’m not trying to pin anyone down to a specific interpretation as I don’t have one myself. I’m really just trying to get some ideas about what others are doing with this parable.

This parable only makes sense per Premil. And not because I'm Premil, but because it doesn't make sense per any other view.

Unless one is a full Preterist in Partial Preterist clothing, they have to acknowledge that Jesus bodily left and that He is yet to bodily return. And that it is after He returns that He then gives authority over cities to His servants that remained faithful while He was away.

Anyone that is a Preterist but can't acknowledge that He left bodily but hasn't returned bodily, could not possibly be a Partial Preterist. But would have to be a full Preterist if they can't come up with one single Scripture that means a bodily return in the end of this age. Even though I disagree, by Preterists insisting Jesus came in judgment in 70 AD, but not bodily, that hardly makes one a full Preterist though. It is when that same interpreter can't acknowledge that Jesus bodily left 2k years ago and is yet to bodily return, and that no Scripture proves it to them, that He still has to bodily return. Guess what? We have a Scripture that proves He bodily returns in the future. The very same verses we have been discussing in your thread.

 

[grafted branch]

This parable only makes sense per Premil. And not because I'm Premil, but because it doesn't make sense per any other view.

Unless one is a full Preterist in Partial Preterist clothing, they have to acknowledge that Jesus bodily left and that He is yet to bodily return. And that it is after He returns that He then gives authority over cities to His servants that remained faithful while He was away.

Anyone that is a Preterist but can't acknowledge that He left bodily but hasn't returned bodily, could not possibly be a Partial Preterist. But would have to be a full Preterist if they can't come up with one single Scripture that means a bodily return in the end of this age. Even though I disagree, by Preterists insisting Jesus came in judgment in 70 AD, but not bodily, that hardly makes one a full Preterist though. It is when that same interpreter can't acknowledge that Jesus bodily left 2k years ago and is yet to bodily return, and that no Scripture proves it to them, that He still has to bodily return. Guess what? We have a Scripture that proves He bodily returns in the future. The very same verses we have been discussing in your thread.

Well there is the view that right after He arose he went to heaven received the kingdom and then returned in a short period of time.

In John 20:17 Jesus tells Mary not to touch Him because He had not yet ascended to the Father. Then in John 20:27 Thomas can touch Jesus. So it’s possible that Jesus ascended and descended in a short period of time and the parable of the minas is referring to Him after He returned but before Thomas touches Him. That would make 10 servants, Judas died and Thomas wasn’t present in John 20:24.

Then in Revelation the seven churches are in seven different cities, suggesting John had received seven cities.

 

[Davidpt]

I agree with your post, although I think Jesus received the kingdom just after the cross. I agree the parable fits with Christ reigning and I don’t think it’s spiritual cities that are given out.

I suppose it would make a good thread to discuss whether Jesus has received the kingdom yet or not.

He did not receive the kingdom at the cross. But because of the cross He received the kingdom. Daniel 7:13-14 records how and when He received the kingdom. That account is meaning after He bodily left the earth in Acts 1.

In Luke 19 the time of the crucifixion was drawing near, merely a cpl of days away. His servants would not have enough time to increase the minas in such a short time span. We have to be realistic here.

 

[Davidpt]

Well there is the view that right after He arose he went to heaven received the kingdom and then returned in a short period of time.

In John 20:17 Jesus tells Mary not to touch Him because He had not yet ascended to the Father. Then in John 20:27 Thomas can touch Jesus. So it’s possible that Jesus ascended and descended in a short period of time and the parable of the minas is referring to Him after He returned but before Thomas touches Him. That would make 10 servants, Judas died and Thomas wasn’t present in John 20:24.

Then in Revelation the seven churches are in seven different cities, suggesting John had received seven cities.

Let's assume that scenario. Where then is there something at that time that can explain the following? Especially verse 27. Where do we see Jesus doing anything like that, in any sense, between the time He told her not to touch Him and when He bodily left the planet in Acts 1?

Luke 19:20 And another came, saying, Lord, behold, here is thy pound, which I have kept laid up in a napkin:
21 For I feared thee, because thou art an austere man: thou takest up that thou layedst not down, and reapest that thou didst not sow.
22 And he saith unto him, Out of thine own mouth will I judge thee, thou wicked servant. Thou knewest that I was an austere man, taking up that I laid not down, and reaping that I did not sow:
23 Wherefore then gavest not thou my money into the bank, that at my coming I might have required mine own with usury?
24 And he said unto them that stood by, Take from him the pound, and give it to him that hath ten pounds.
25 (And they said unto him, Lord, he hath ten pounds.)
26 For I say unto you, That unto every one which hath shall be given; and from him that hath not, even that he hath shall be taken away from him.
27 But those mine enemies, which would not that I should reign over them, bring hither, and slay them before me.

 

[Jay Ross]

Luke 19:12 He said therefore, A certain nobleman went into a far country to receive for himself a kingdom, and to return.

If Satan is the nobleman what kingdom does he receive? Aren’t the kingdoms of this world already his?

Since you only want to protect your own understanding, I will not continue with this conversation that both the Parables of the Talents and the Minas point to the man who goes away as being Satan.

In coming to my understanding, I have let the whole breadth of scripture provide the understanding that I should hold.

Shalom