Is there mention of unbelieving gentile slaughter in the surrounding context of Luke 19:11-44?
All who are not taken up to meet the Lord in the air when He comes will be left behind and killed.
- Thread starter Spiritual Israelite
- Start date
-
Welcome to Christian Forums, a Christian Forum that recognizes that all Christians are a work in progress.
You will need to register to be able to join in fellowship with Christians all over the world.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
Is there mention of unbelieving gentile slaughter in the surrounding context of Luke 19:11-44?
According to Luke the rewards are related to :“I tell you that everyone who has will be given more; but the one who does not have, even what he has will be taken away from him”. Unfortunately, since that’s not the main point of the parable, in Luke, according to the context, the surrounding context doesn’t go into any depth.
Red herring fallacy, SI - I’m talking about Luke and the surrounding context which is about Christ’s triumphant arrival into Jerusalem, where the kingdom did not manifest immediately, but instead his kingship was denied by the Pharisees, followed by Christ prophesying of Jerusalem’s destruction and slaughter - the very elements that Luke added to the parable.
Why in the world, would the surrounding context of the Pharisees rejecting Christs kingship, followed by Christs prophesy of Jerusalem’s destruction and slaughter be completely unrelated to the parable’s elements of the citizens rejecting the nobleman as king, followed by their slaughter and destruction???
Last edited:
I asked first, answer mine, then I’ll answer yours.
Doesn’t answer my question- does the surrounding context mention the slaughter of gentiles?
Come on. If you can't even offer a guess as to what that is about, why should I take your view on this seriously?
Do you deny a future judgment when any of those Pharisees who did not repent will be cast into the lake of fire? Why couldn't Jesus have been referring to that, especially since it talks about rewards for believers at the same time? It talks about them being brought before Him. That suggests people being brought before the throne for judgment.
Also, the parable is about when the kingdom of God would appear. Spiritually, the kingdom of God appeared well before 70 AD. We will inherit the kingdom of God in its fullness when Jesus returns in the future. The context is not about 70 AD.
Why should I take you seriously if you are always claiming context is important, but now keep shifting and deflecting when pressed about context?
Why would the surrounding context of the Jesus’ arrival to Jerusalem and the kingdom not immediately manifesting, but instead the Pharisees reject Christs kingship, followed Jesus’ prophesy of Jerusalem’s destruction and slaughter……have absolutely nothing to do with Jesus telling a parable, whose main point is about the kingdom not manifesting immediately, and includes elements where the citizens reject the nobleman’s kingship and are subsequently slaughtered.
Reply to that and we can absolutely change the subject to rewards and future final judgment. I’ll happily discuss what I think the rewards refer to in the context of Matthew’s use of the parable.
Until then, I’m not interested in entertaining your red herring.
So, let's not take each other seriously then. Whatever. I will now proceed to do something better with my time.
It’s unfortunate it took you multiple posts of not addressing the context to realize you were wasting your time.
Yes, I agree. At least I'm not ignoring that it talks about rewards being given at the same time which helps establish the context of what He was talking about in the parable, which was their eventual eternal punishment.
You are conflating thematic elements (like rewards) with narrative context, which is a misuse of the term context. Context doesn’t mean “one part of the parable that supports my interpretation.” It refers to the surrounding narrative material, historical setting, audience, and literary flow in which the parable appears. You’re treating the mention of rewards inside the parable as if that’s the parable’s context. But context refers to what surrounds the parable—Luke’s framing, the narrative flow, the historical situation, and what Jesus is responding to.
In this case, Luke tells us that Jesus gives this parable BECAUSE people thought the kingdom was going to appear immediately when he arrived in Jerusalem (Luke 19:11), then it shows Jesus being rejected as king by the Pharisees (Luke 19:38–39), and then prophesying Jerusalem’s destruction and slaughter (Luke 19:41–44). That’s the actual context.
You’re reading the parable in isolation and calling that “context,” but that’s not how context works. Ignoring Luke’s framing while focusing only on internal themes is not interpreting in context—it’s interpreting in a vacuum -> this would be the very definition of eisegesis.
Wow, ok let’s add strawman to list of fallacies you’ve already used.
Discussing one part of the parable (the citizens rejecting the nobleman as king and their subsequent slaughter) and how it should be understood in light of of the surrounding context (Jesus’ triumphal entry where the kingdom did not manifest immediately, but instead resulted in the Pharisees rejecting his kingship and the subsequent prophecy of Jerusalem’s destruction and slaughter) is not the same as ignoring the content of the parable. I’m simply ignoring your red herring of attempting to shift to another part of the parable, until you address the surrounding context.
Can you explain how your interpretation of the citizens rejecting the nobleman as king when the nobleman goes on a long journey and their subsequent destruction and slaughter - accounts for the surrounding context of Luke 19:11 and 28-44?
Last edited:
You think I'm not addressing part of the parable even though I already said I believe the punishment relates to judgment day and them being cast into the lake of fire rather than to physical destruction in 70 AD. If you disagree, so be it, but I am addressing that part of the parable. You, meanwhile, don't want to take into consideration that believers are rewarded at the same time. So, you interpret the parable without taking the whole parable into account. If you think that's wise, then so be it.
When do you plan on addressing the what it says in the entire parable instead of just part of it?
LOL. I can take whatever approach I want to interpreting the parable. What will be the reason that those Pharisees will eventually be cast into the lake of fire? Because they rejected Jesus, right? So, that's what I believe the parable is talking about. It talks about the nobleman having gone away to receive His kingdom and then returning to reward His people and punish those who reject Him, which includes the Pharisees. It talks about them being brought before him. How does that not make you think of unbelievers being brought before His throne for judgment?
The parable was told in response to the false belief that the kingdom of God would be fully manifested on the earth immediately. Jesus showed that is not the case because the nobleman being crowned King and receiving His kingdom would go away for some time first. When He gets back He will reward His people and punish those who rejected Him, including the Pharisees of His day. That is what will happen at His return in the future. They were physically destroyed in 70 AD, but Jesus also talked about their eventual eternal destiny after being brought before Him. Those Pharisees and all unbelievers will be brought before Him when He returns and they will give an account of themselves and then be cast into "everlasting fire prepared for the devil and his angels", otherwise known as "the lake of fire" (Matthew 25:41, Rev 20:15).
My post #120 was a response to Scott downey’s post #115, in which Scott Downey used the parable of the Mina’s, specifically vs 27, to demonstrate that the nobleman slays ALL his enemies in general. THAT’S why I’m focusing on that specific aspect of the parable and not the rewards……I disagreed it was all the nobleman’s enemies in general, but instead the citizens that rejected him as king.
Then you jumped in with “ what about the the rewards?”, which is not the main point of the parable according to the surrounding context, and not what I was addressing to Scott.
As far as what the rewards mean, that can be found in vs 26.
The surrounding context of Luke 19 makes no mention of the final judgement/cast into the lake of fire in regards to the Pharisees. That is eisegesis on your part. You’re reading that into the text based on your eschatological view and not the context of the passage. The surrounding context, specifically vs 41-44, clearly mention the slaughter and destruction of Jerusalem. Why in the world would the Pharisees rejecting Christ as king followed by the prophesy that Jerusalem will be destroyed and slaughtered, have absolutely nothing to do very elements of the parable?
You can't understand what the parable is about without understanding when the rewards are given which is when Jesus returns. He gave no rewards to anyone in 70 AD, so the parable has to be about His future return when He will give rewards to His people. To me, that establishes the context of the parable in terms of the timing of it. And unbelievers will be punished at that point as well.
The parable talks about the king saying "those enemies of mine who did not want me to be king over them" being brought before Him and then being punished. How does that not make you think of the judgment when everyone is gathered before Jesus on His throne with unbelievers being cast into "everlasting fire prepared for the devil and his angels" for "everlasting punishment" (Matthew 25:31-46)? There is nothing which demands that what Jesus talked about after that had to relate directly to that parable. In His Olivet Discourse He had both the near punishment of the Jews and His more distant return in mind and He talked about both events, so that's just something He did.
Importing your presupposed eschatological view onto the parable, while ignoring the surrounding context, is literally the definition of eisegesis.
How does that not make me think that?
Because the events of the parable in regards to the citizens rejecting the nobleman as king and their subsequent slaughtered, literally play out in the surrounding context - Pharisees reject Christ as king, Christ subsequently prophesies of Jerusalem’s utter slaughter and destruction (vs 39-44).
Christ doesn’t get rejected as king by the Pharisees and then subsequently prophesy of a final judgement on mankind.
Well there is, but you have seemingly chosen to ignore that due to your current eschatological presupposition.
Jesus’ parable that includes the citizens rejecting the nobleman kingship then later slaughtered has nothing to do with events literally playing out in the surrounding context - Jesus rejected as king by Pharisees, then Jerusalem’s slaughter and destruction prophesied?
Similar threads
