Parable of the minas

[ewq1938]

He did not receive the kingdom at the cross. But because of the cross He received the kingdom.

Sounds to me He left his kingdom to come here and would leve to return to his kingdom. Not sure he had to accomplish anything to receive the kingdom in heaven.

Joh_18:36 Jesus answered, My kingdom is not of this world: if my kingdom were of this world, then would my servants fight, that I should not be delivered to the Jews: but now is my kingdom not from hence.

At the 7th trump his heavenly kingdom will be here, with all kingdoms here becoming his, Rev 11.

 

[Jay Ross]

It seems that the pertinent question with respect to the parables of the Talents and Minas is when does the Ancient of Days give the Son of Man dominion over the whole earth.

The following scriptures gives us a timeline as to when this will happen.



I would humbly suggest that Satan goes into the Bottomless Pit along with the other heavenly hosts and the judged kings of the earth and Christ is given dominion over the peoples of the earth such that they should worship Him. It is my view that the above events will happen in the year 2044/2045 AD.

Shalom

 

[grafted branch]

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.

You’re asking a fair question, especially verse 27.

Luke 29:27 But those mine enemies, which would not that I should reign over them, bring hither, and slay them before me.

It would seem that those who are given the cities have the responsibility to carry out the command to bring those who didn’t want Christ to reign over them to a place where they are slain.

Ok, a Preterist is going to say that place was Jerusalem and the slaughter took place in 70AD. If John was one of the servants and he was given the seven cities in Revelation, we should be able to see some kind of warning for those who refused to have Christ reign over them. I’m not going to list them but in Revelation 2-3 are the warnings to the churches.

When do you suppose that slaughter takes place? At the future second coming? If so then when are the cities handed out? At the same second coming?

 

[Davidpt]

Sounds to me He left his kingdom to come here and would leve to return to his kingdom. Not sure he had to accomplish anything to receive the kingdom in heaven.

Joh_18:36 Jesus answered, My kingdom is not of this world: if my kingdom were of this world, then would my servants fight, that I should not be delivered to the Jews: but now is my kingdom not from hence.

At the 7th trump his heavenly kingdom will be here, with all kingdoms here becoming his, Rev 11.

When you connect John 18:36 and Revelation 11:15, it perfectly shows the transition from 'now' to 'not yet.' In John 18, during His first coming, Jesus says His kingdom is 'not of this world---meaning it was heavenly, spiritual, and not driven by earthly military force at that time. But Revelation 11 shows the ultimate climax---at the 7th trumpet, the kingdoms of this world are become the kingdoms of our Lord, and of his Christ. It is the exact moment His heavenly rule is brought down to earth, and the takeover becomes visible and physical.

This timeline actually bridges perfectly with the parable of the nobleman in Luke 19. Jesus is the nobleman who gives His servants their instructions to occupy while He goes away to that far country (Heaven) to receive His kingdom.

Right now, we are living in that exact 'waiting and working' period while He is in Heaven. When He returns at the 7th trumpet, He comes back to claim all earthly kingdoms as His own. It’s a perfect picture of His kingdom moving from being hidden in the hearts of believers to openly ruling the entire world


You indicated that you are not sure He had to accomplish anything to receive the kingdom. Of course He had to accomplish something first. He had to defeat death first. Otherwise, He would still be dead to this day and though the kingdom is already there, there would be no kingdom for Him to receive for Himself and to return with this kingdom manifested physically rather than unseen like now, since He could never return to heaven to receive it and bring it back to the earth in a manifested physical form if He remained dead instead.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

Did you even read the OP?

Yes, I did.

When the cities are given out in the parable there are more cities than there are servants. Read the parable again.

So what? Why does that matter? Each servant can be given authority over more than one city. What is hard to understand about that?

So you think the parable uses having authority over cities even though the meaning of the parable has nothing to do with having authority over other individuals?

It may have something to do with that, but we can't know for sure because it's a parable. You don't seem to understand how parables work. They are fictional stories that include fictional people, places and things that represent real people, places and things. The point of the parable is that believers will receive rewards of some kind when Jesus returns. The rewards will not be literal authority over cities. Those fictional rewards that Jesus made up represent something else in reality. That's how parables work.

There is indication of that you just seem to always reject anything that doesn’t fit your agenda.

I reject anything that I don't believe is true. And so do you. I have no agenda unless you call pursuing the truth of scripture an agenda.

If Jesus was talking about believers in general then there are more cities being given out in the parable than there are believers.

Okay, I think I understand what you're trying to say now. You're taking the parable literally as if every believer will literally be given authority over one or more cities and that's why you're getting confused. If the parable was meant to be taken literally as if that is what is literally going to happen for every believer then it would be the case that some believers would have authority over cities that have no people in them since there would be more people than there are cities (assuming the cities consist only of believers).

If you properly understand that it's just a parable and it's not meant to be taken literally then you can realize that Jesus is simply illustrating that believers will receive rewards when He returns based on how well they served Him. He doesn't say exactly what those rewards will be. He figuratively represents the unspecified rewards as authority over cities. So, that could represent being given authority of some kind, but not over literal cities. In terms of the parable, it can be assumed that each city has many residents in it and each fictional servant is given authority over those fictional cities. Don't get tripped up by that by acting as if believers are going to receive authority over literal cities. That's not what Jesus was saying or else He would have just said that instead of telling a parable.

I get it that you have to appeal to things like we don’t know what rewards will be received but there are other explanations.

It's a parable, which is a fictional story that represents reality, but you are acting as if it's a true story. That's why you don't understand it.

I think the problem is it doesn’t fit your Amill view and that is something you seem to want to dearly hold onto no matter what.

Wrong. The Amill view is clearly supported by scripture and that's why I believe it. It's not that I want to believe it or have some agenda. It's the truth and has overwhelming scriptural support. But, you have been duped by false preterist doctrine and you can't see it.

Sure, but you’re ignoring the obvious, cities are used in the parable, which means having authority over others.

It could represent authority over others, but we don't know for sure what fictional servants having authority over fictional cities represents exactly. Regardless, the number of cities and servants in the parable is irrelevant in terms of what the parable represents.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

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,

What makes you think that Amil claims that the authority only lasts a single day? You have no understanding of Amil at all, yet you continue to try to speak for Amil while misrepresenting it. You do that over and over and over again. I wish I knew why. Just admit that you have no understanding of Amil and stop trying to speak for us.

nor does it make sense to still be exercising this authority for ever once God is all in all.

Why do you say that? Think of the angels. There is clearly some kind of hierarchical system with the angels, so some have more authority than others. Is there any reason to think that will ever not be the case? No. So, why would that be the case for believers who receive authority when Jesus returns?

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?

Again you are misrepresenting Amil. Have you no shame? Of course we see a chronology to this. He went away when He ascended to heaven and He will return from heaven and give believers rewards at that time which may involve authority of some kind. There's obviously a chronology to that.

Returning to where, though? Some Amils have the entire planet engulfed in flames at the time.

Paul said we will meet Him "in the air". Why won't we meet Him on the earth if He is going to return to the earth as we know it?

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.

That is referring to the second death. The judgment will occur when He returns, according to Matthew 25:31-46, so Luke 19:11-27 has to be referring to unbelievers being cast into the lake of fire (the second death), just as Matthew 25:31-46 says will happen when Jesus returns.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

There might be a way the parable fits the Premill view. If you were to say the cities are given out at the beginning of the millennium, they would be empty cities, devoid of people. As the millennium progresses the cities would fill up and those that initially got the cities would maintain authority over them and over the people in them.

Why are you acting as if the parable is a real story rather than a fictional story representing something in reality? No one is going to be literally given authority over cities when Jesus returns. That fictional story figuratively represents what will happen when Jesus returns. Believers will be given rewards of some kind, but not authority over literal cities. Until you learn how parables work, you will never understand what the parable is actually about.

One thing for sure, people like @Spiritual Israel have to try to water down the parable to make it work for them.

Nonsense! I'm reading it as a parable, unlike you. You don't even understand that parables are fictional stories. You're acting as if Jesus was talking about believers actually being given authority over literal cities when He returns. That's not the case. Should I accuse you of changing it from a parable (fictional story) to a true story to make it fit your beliefs? I know you're not doing that on purpose, but you are very ignorant about what parables are.

 

[Davidpt]

Oh! How sad it is that people are still not understanding the Parables of the Talents and the Minas.

In the Parable of the Minas, Jesus, at the beginning, hints at the time when the Nation of Israel we repent of their turning away from God and as such Jesus speaks of the Israelite servants of Satan sending a delegation after Satan goes away to get a kingdom that they no longer want Satan to rule over them. Jesus also hints at the action of Satan after he returns with his claimed kingdom that Satan will want to destroy the Israelites because they turned away from Him while he was gone and demands that these "wicked servants of his," be killed before him. John in Rev 12 tells us this same story of Satan wanting to destroy Israel.

If we are looking forward as "Saints" of Christ to being given cities to rule over, then we have missed the point that Jesus demonstrated that as His Saints, we should humble ourselves and become like a servant and not desire to lord it over others.

Our understanding has clouded what Jesus taught in these two parables, where Satan has been replaced as the main character in the Parables by Christ and the "Good and Faithful Servants" of the man who goes away with "God's saints." who want to evangelize others through the use of money.

Oh Well! Such is life when we, the Saints do not eyes to see or ears to hears.

Shalom

According to an AI

The person who wrote this is pulling from a highly specific, modern theological framework known as a "subversive reading" or "anti-master reading" of the parables.
While the traditional view for 2,000 years has been that the Master represents Christ, a school of modern academic thought—largely rooted in Marxist, Liberation, and Peasant Theology—argues that the Master is actually a greedy, villainous tyrant.
The commentator you quoted has taken this academic framework and mashed it together with their own unique End-Times/Revelation theories. Here is exactly where they are getting these ideas:

1. The Idea that the "Master" is Evil (Satan)

In ancient agrarian societies, wealth accumulation was often seen as a zero-sum game. If one person got rich, it meant they were actively exploiting the poor. Because the Master admits he is an "austere man, taking what I did not deposit and reaping what I did not sow" (Luke 19:22), some modern readers argue that Jesus was actually describing a ruthless, corrupt king (like Herod Archelaus) rather than Himself.
The person you are reading took this "bad master" theory and took it a step further by straight up casting Satan as the Master.

2. The "Delegation" and Revelation 12 Link

In Luke 19:14, the citizens hate the nobleman and send a delegation saying, "We do not want this man to reign over us."
• Traditional View: This represents the religious leaders rejecting Jesus.
• This Person's View: They are flipping it. They think the "citizens" are the faithful Nation of Israel repenting of their past sins. Therefore, by saying "we don't want him to rule over us," Israel is actually trying to break up with Satan. Because they rejected Satan, Satan returns in a rage to slaughter them (Luke 19:27). They tie this directly to Revelation 12, where the dragon (Satan) is cast down to earth and persecutes the woman (Israel).

3. The "Good and Faithful Servants" are Actually the Bad Guys

In this flipped interpretation, if the Master is Satan, then the servants who made a 1,000% profit using his money are Satan’s henchmen. This is why the writer claims that Christians have "missed the point" by wanting to rule over cities. They believe the third servant (who buried the money) is actually the hero of the story because he bravely refused to participate in Satan's corrupt financial system.

Summary of Where This Comes From

This interpretation comes from a combination of:
1. Academic Left-Wing Theology: Borrowing the "Master is a corporate exploiter" model.
2. Extreme Anti-Money Rhetoric: Assuming that because money/banking is involved, the system must be demonic.
3. Imaginative Prophecy Matching: Forcing the violent ending of the Parable of the Minas to match the cosmic warfare of Revelation 12.
By completely reversing the characters, they have turned a parable about spiritual stewardship and faithfulness into a complex political allegory about escaping the devil's economy

 

[Davidpt]

What makes you think that Amil claims that the authority only lasts a single day? You have no understanding of Amil at all, yet you continue to try to speak for Amil while misrepresenting it. You do that over and over and over again. I wish I knew why. Just admit that you have no understanding of Amil and stop trying to speak for us.

You mean, for example. the same way that what makes you think you can speak for me in regard to Zechariah 14:16, where you insist it means animal sacrificing resumes if placed after the 2nd coming, when I told you plain as day that I do not believe animal sacrificing resumes post the 2nd coming? You really play fair don't you? BTW, @TribulationSigns submitted a gif about---do you want a tissue, in another thread, where I found it distasteful to what he was applying it to. That gif would not be distasteful in this case though, the fact you seem to cry a lot about what you see me supposedly doing that you are clearly doing at times to others yourself. That aside.

You are completely missing the logical and linguistic trap your own position creates. Let’s look at what the Greek text actually says in Luke 19:17 when Jesus says,have authority over ten cities.


The phrase is isthi exousian echōn epanō deka poleōn.

Exousia means delegated right, legal jurisdiction, and subordinate governing power.

Epanō means to be positioned above or higher in rank/status than the thing you are governing.

This requires a functioning hierarchy--a supreme King delegating administrative jurisdiction to rulers who stand above (epanō) specific geographic regions (cities).

If this indeed is the Amil position---that this delegated authority over cities somehow continues forever into the eternal state---I'm not trying to act like it isn't. I'm just telling you that I see zero Scriptural logic in it. To me, it looks like a position held simply because it's the only way you can supposedly disprove Premil.

Look at 1 Corinthians 15:24, which explicitly describes the transition into the final, eternal state---Then comes the end, when He delivers the kingdom to God the Father, when He puts down all rule and all authority and power.

The Greek word Paul uses here for authority is the exact same word Jesus uses in Luke 19---exousia.

Scripture is explicit---at the final end, Christ abolishes all subordinate jurisdiction (exousia) so that God may be "all in all--1 Corinthians 15:28. In the eternal state, there is no more structural hierarchy among the redeemed, and no more ruling over (epanō) cities.

So which is it? If you claim this administrative authority lasts forever in the eternal state, you directly contradict Paul in 1 Corinthians 15. If you claim it doesn't last, then you are arguing it's a temporary authority. The only framework that naturally accommodates a real, temporary, delegated exousia epanō over physical cities is an earthly Millennium prior to the final delivery of the kingdom to the Father. Premil handles this perfectly. Amil forces a square linguistic peg into a round theological hole.

 

[Ziggy]

I notice that most of the time when Jesus is speaking in parables, usually he is within earshot of some Pharisees.
And they understand what he is saying because they study the Torah daily.
If you go back to the twelve tribes of Israel, When God sent them to conquer Canaan, the land was to be apportioned by 10 tribes.
Because Gad and Rueben had already chosen their land and those cities they wanted on the former side of the Jordan.
The rest of the 9 tribes and the 1/2 tribe of Manasseh was to divide the land on the other side of Jordan. The land of Canaan that they were sent to conquer.
AKA: The Promised Land

It's in Numbers 34 and 35.

Jesus is telling the Pharisees, You were given this land of Jerusalem to build cities and raise family and cattle and to live peaceably.
But you failed and Rome came and took it from you. You have not been a good and faithful servant, so that which you had will be taken from you, which it was in 70AD.


Those who have ears to hear would be those who understood the parable.
And the Pharisees understood and they were upset.
At this time Jesus is on his way to Jerusalem because his time to leave is near.
And his Kingdom is waiting for Him on the other side.

I hope this helps:
Hugs

 

[Davidpt]

I notice that most of the time when Jesus is speaking in parables, usually he is within earshot of some Pharisees.
And they understand what he is saying because they study the Torah daily.
If you go back to the twelve tribes of Israel, When God sent them to conquer Canaan, the land was to be apportioned by 10 tribes.
Because Gad and Rueben had already chosen their land and those cities they wanted on the former side of the Jordan.
The rest of the 9 tribes and the 1/2 tribe of Manasseh was to divide the land on the other side of Jordan. The land of Canaan that they were sent to conquer.
AKA: The Promised Land

It's in Numbers 34 and 35.

Jesus is telling the Pharisees, You were given this land of Jerusalem to build cities and raise family and cattle and to live peaceably.
But you failed and Rome came and took it from you. You have not been a good and faithful servant, so that which you had will be taken from you, which it was in 70AD.


Those who have ears to hear would be those who understood the parable.
And the Pharisees understood and they were upset.
At this time Jesus is on his way to Jerusalem because his time to leave is near.
And his Kingdom is waiting for Him on the other side.

I hope this helps:
Hugs

Luke 8:10 And he said, Unto you it is given to know the mysteries of the kingdom of God: but to others in parables; that seeing they might not see, and hearing they might not understand.

I don't see that applying to Luke 19, though.

 

[ewq1938]

You indicated that you are not sure He had to accomplish anything to receive the kingdom. Of course He had to accomplish something first. He had to defeat death first.

He already had the kingdom before he was born. The cross was about sin and salvation etc. I don't see it related to any possession of a kingdom, especially the one he already had and came from before birth.

 

[Ziggy]

Luke 8:10 And he said, Unto you it is given to know the mysteries of the kingdom of God: but to others in parables; that seeing they might not see, and hearing they might not understand.

I don't see that applying to Luke 19, though.

Read the whole chapter.
There is a Publican who wants to hear Jesus, and those around are questioning him.
Remember those cities were given for places of refuge, but those that had charge of them condemned their own citizens.

Because the Kingdom of God is about loving your neighbor, and those that can hear do hear and those who have no love are deaf to the message, unless it is directed at them.

In Mark chapter 12 we find that the Pharisees knew exactly what he was saying:

Mar 12:9
What shall therefore the lord of the vineyard do? he will come and destroy the husbandmen, and will give the vineyard unto others.
Mar 12:12
And they sought to lay hold on him, but feared the people: for they knew that he had spoken the parable against them: and they left him, and went their way.

Who was Jesus speaking to when he spoke that parable?
To his disciples? Yeah, But it was intended for those whose hearts were hardened. And he gave them a warning. But they didn't listen.

Hugs

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

You mean, for example. the same way that what makes you think you can speak for me in regard to Zechariah 14:16, where you insist it means animal sacrificing resumes if placed after the 2nd coming, when I told you plain as day that I do not believe animal sacrificing resumes post the 2nd coming?

Are you for real? I do NOT insist that it means animal sacrificing resumes with how you interpret it (not literally). I said it means that IF a person take Zechariah 14:16-21 literally.. If you don't, then that statement doesn't apply to you. Why can't you understand that? I know you don't believe that animal sacrificing continues post the 2nd coming and I do NOT claim that you do believe that. Maybe I did years ago or something before you clarified what you believe, but I have not said that to you any time in recent years after you clarified that you don't take it literally like many other Premils do.

It would be helpful if you actually told me how you do interpret Zechariah 14:16-21, though. You act like you have Zechariah 14 all figured out, yet you can't even offer a guess as to what you think Zechariah 14;16-21 means.

You really play fair don't you? BTW, @TribulationSigns submitted a gif about---do you want a tissue, in another thread, where I found it distasteful to what he was applying it to. That gif would not be distasteful in this case though, the fact you seem to cry a lot about what you see me supposedly doing that you are clearly doing at times to others yourself. That aside.

You have no idea of what you're talking about here. None. Zero. Nada.

You are completely missing the logical and linguistic trap your own position creates. Let’s look at what the Greek text actually says in Luke 19:17 when Jesus says have authority over ten cities.


The phrase is isthi exousian echōn epanō deka poleōn.

Exousia means delegated right, legal jurisdiction, and subordinate governing power.

Epanō means to be positioned above or higher in rank/status than the thing you are governing.

This requires a functioning hierarchy--a supreme King delegating administrative jurisdiction to rulers who stand above (epanō) specific geographic regions (cities).

It's a parable. Hello? Why are you acting as if the parable is supposed to be taken literally. Do you not understand that parables are fictional stories with fictional people, places and things that figuratively represent real people, places and things? Why do you act as if Jesus taught that believers will literally be given authority over literal cities? He didn't. That figuratively represents the fact that we will be rewarded when He returns in some way according to how faithful and fruitful we have been with what we've been given.

If this indeed is the Amil position---that this delegated authority over cities somehow continues forever into the eternal state---I'm not trying to act like it isn't. I'm just telling you that I see zero Scriptural logic in it.

You are talking as if Jesus was saying that people will be literally given authority over literal cities at that time. That is NOT what He was saying. Do you not understand that parables are fictional stories that represent things in reality?

To me, it looks like a position held simply because it's the only way you can supposedly disprove Premil.

LOL. You are a comedian.

Look at 1 Corinthians 15:24, which explicitly describes the transition into the final, eternal state---Then comes the end, when He delivers the kingdom to God the Father, when He puts down all rule and all authority and power.

That is talking about Him putting an end to all worldly rule, authority and power. How can you not discern this? He will be destroying all of His enemies when He returns and then the kingdom(s) of the world will belong to Him and the Father (Revelation 11:15-18). It's not saying that He will put down literally all rule, authority and power, even from His own people.

The Greek word Paul uses here for authority is the exact same word Jesus uses in Luke 19---exousia.

Scripture is explicit---at the final end, Christ abolishes all subordinate jurisdiction (exousia) so that God may be "all in all--1 Corinthians 15:28. In the eternal state, there is no more structural hierarchy among the redeemed, and no more ruling over (epanō) cities.

This is absolutely false. I truly have no idea how you are coming to this conclusion. That is NOT what that verse says at all. I challenge you to find even one person who agrees with you about this.

So which is it? If you claim this administrative authority lasts forever in the eternal state, you directly contradict Paul in 1 Corinthians 15.

No, I do not! You clearly have no understanding whatsoever of what Paul said in 1 Corinthians 15:24-28.

If you claim it doesn't last, then you are arguing it's a temporary authority. The only framework that naturally accommodates a real, temporary, delegated exousia epanō over physical cities is an earthly Millennium prior to the final delivery of the kingdom to the Father. Premil handles this perfectly. Amil forces a square linguistic peg into a round theological hole.

Here you are again talking about authority over physical cities. Jesus was NOT saying that is literally what is going to happen. Good grief, man. He told a parable. Do you take Matthew 25:1-13 so literally, too? Do you think it's talking about literal virgins going out with literal lamps to meet Christ?

 

[Ziggy]

Good grief, man. He told a parable.

It took me a long time to understand that Bread was the Word of God.
When Jesus said I am the Living bread, not like the manna Moses gave you.
It took a while, but somewhere came that aha moment and it's as if a door opened and I had better "spriritual" understanding and how the parables should be applied and to whom.

I'm just saying, sometimes it takes awhile.
Some get it, and they get more. Others don't and they have to keep asking.
At some point...

Aha!


Hugs

 

[William Barton]

In Luke 19:11-27 we have the parable of the minas, this parable is told because they thought the kingdom of God should immediately appear. In the parable there are ten servants, we know the fate of three of them which takes place after He receives the kingdom and returns. One gets ten cities, one gets five cities, and the other it isn’t clear but based on what the other two were given, presumably that servant would’ve received a city if they were faithful and not wicked.

So out of ten servants total, it’s known that fifteen cities were given out and reasonably, at a bare minimum, there were twenty three cities total for the ten servants based on the assumption of at least one city per servant. That’s a minimum of 2.3 cities for every faith servant to have authority over

​

Luke 19:13, Greek δεκα μνας​

δεκα = 10​

μνας = 1/60 of a talent​

Two acquired a return on the money.​

The third did nothing to acquire a return.​

​

We did not create this world, we are invited guests; and we will all give an account of what we did with what we were given (Romans 14:12).​

 

[Ziggy]

Luke 19:13, Greek δεκα μνας​

δεκα = 10​

μνας = "sum of money"​

(Oxford Greek Dictionary)​

​

The question is what they did with the money. Two acquired a return, the third did nothing to acquire a return.​

​

We will all give an account (Romans 14:12).​

The difference between the 2 rich men.
In one place a young rich man asks Jesus what must I do to be saved? And Jesus tells him, sell all that you have, give to the poor and follow me.
He wasn't happy about that and went on his way.
In the second place that is Luke 19, a rich man is hungering to hear the Lord, climbs a tree and then faces his accusers who accuse him of being a rich tax collector.
He explains: I give half of what I own to the poor and if I make a mistake and overcharge someone, I pay them back 4- fold.

It's not so much about the money as it is what's in your heart.
In my opinon

Hugs

 

[Davidpt]

He already had the kingdom before he was born. The cross was about sin and salvation etc. I don't see it related to any possession of a kingdom, especially the one he already had and came from before birth.

You are not thinking outside of the box then.

All I'm basically saying is this. The parable involves Jesus going away and receiving a kingdom for Himself, then returning later.

The chonology of events is not this---Jesus is born on the planet, then some years later Jesus leaves, then some years later Jesus returns.

The chonology of events is this---Jesus is born on the planet, Then some years later Jesus dies on the earth and rises from the dead on the earth, then some 40 days later Jesus leaves, then some years later Jesus returns. And that we can't get to what He does in the parable without Him doing this first--Jesus dies on the earth and rises from the dead on the earth

But if He had remained dead, which He didn't, there would be no parable in Luke 19 for Him to fulfill. He would still be in the tomb to this day. Therefore, He had to be born first, overcome all things first, die first then overcome death by rising from the dead first, before He can leave and go away to receive a kingdom for Himself and literally bring this kingdom with Him when He returns, the kingdom then being in a state that it can be seen with the naked eye and physically experienced, rather than unseen like now where it is experienced by faith not sight.

We have to keep in mind, thus far Jesus has not brought this kingdom to the earth where it can be seen and physically experienced rather than experienced only by faith. But His kingdom that He brings with Him is meaning the NJ, which then requires that the NHNE begin during His return. How can anyone argue that the NJ in Revelation 21-22 is not the kingdom? If it's not the kingdom, then what is it, the fact Jesus will be dwelling there forever?

Therefore, in my view, the NHNE must begin with the millennium, or if not that, Amil is the correct view instead. Since it is absurd that the NJ is not the kingdom. But the NHNE are a process that begins with the millennium and is not in it's completed final form until after the GWTJ, after satan's little season, after the millennium, after the 2nd coming. You are likely going to argue that that contradicts that the NHNE doesn't come down until after the GWTJ. And that I argue it contradicts that the NJ is the kingdom if the kingdom Jesus brings with Him is not the NJ. So why do you then believe Isaiah 65 involves the millennium? It is clearly involving the NJ and NHNE.

 

[ewq1938]

You are not thinking outside of the box then.

I burned the box long ago.

All I'm basically saying is this. The parable involves Jesus going away and receiving a kingdom for Himself, then returning later.

Outside of a parable I don't see Jesus "receiving" a kingdom when he returned to the kingdom. He also bnrings that same kingdom with him and takes over all kingdoms here.

How can anyone argue that the NJ in Revelation 21-22 is not the kingdom?

It's not the kingdom because the kingdom is here before NJ ever comes. It's like the capital city of the new Earth.

Therefore, in my view, the NHNE must begin with the millennium, or if not that, Amil is the correct view instead.

It comes after the Mill. There is nothing correct in Amill regarding thgis.

Since it is absurd that the NJ is not the kingdom. But the NHNE are a process that begins with the millennium and is not in it's completed final form until after the GWTJ, after satan's little season, after the millennium, after the 2nd coming.

The Millennium is fully unrelated to the new Earth.

You are likely going to argue that that contradicts that the NHNE doesn't come down until after the GWTJ. And that I argue it contradicts that the NJ is the kingdom if the kingdom Jesus brings with Him is not the NJ.

One city is not a kingdom.

So why do you then believe Isaiah 65 involves the millennium? It is clearly involving the NJ and NHNE.

I am not sure what you are refering to.

 

[Jay Ross]

People still reading the parables about the Talents and the Minas but having no understanding of what was being told to the respective audiences after they have read these two parables.

People are still not using their eyes to see or their ears to hear. It is so sad.