Luke 19:12 He said therefore, A certain nobleman went into a far country to receive for himself a kingdom, and to return. 19:13 And he called his ten servants, and delivered them ten pounds, and said unto them, Occupy till I come. 19:14 But his citizens hated him, and sent a message after him, saying, We will not have this man to reign over us. 19:15 And it came to pass, that when he was returned, having received the kingdom, then he commanded these servants to be called unto him, to whom he had given the money, that he might know how much every man had gained by trading. 19:16 Then came the first, saying, Lord, thy pound hath gained ten pounds. 19:17 And he said unto him, Well, thou good servant: because thou hast been faithful in a very little, have thou authority over ten cities. 19:18 And the second came, saying, Lord, thy pound hath gained five pounds. 19:19: And he said likewise to him, Be thou also over five cities. 19:20 And another came, saying, Lord, behold, here is thy pound, which I have kept laid up in a napkin: 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. 19:22 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: 19:23 Wherefore then gavest not thou my money into the bank, that at my coming I might have required mine own with usury? 19:24 And he said unto them that stood by, Take from him the pound, and give it to him that hath ten pounds. 19:25: (And they said unto him, Lord, he hath ten pounds.) 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. 19:27 But those mine enemies, which would not that I should reign over them, bring hither, and slay them before me. So, would any of you care to "thoroughly" expound on this parable from the Bible? Use whatever version you care to use. Maybe this is the day I need to sit back to listen and learn.
OK, I’ll take a shot. I'm doing this really quickly while waiting on a conference call, so this will be rough and probably not fine tuned. Author: Luke. This is not a first hand account, but a very carefully researched recounting of the life of Jesus that was taken from eye-witnesses. .” Luke says he carefully investigated and decided to write a very “orderly” account so that Theophilus could be certain of the things he had been taught. When written: Probably late 50s to early 60s Audience: Written to a Greek audience, specifically, to “Theophilus” – either an individual represented by the name “Lover of God.” Theophilus is called “most excellent,” most likely demonstrating that he was a wealthy or high ranking Roman. Where written: Unknown. Someone in the Roman empire, most likely in a major city. Possibly Rome or Ephesus. Style: Historical narrative. The Greek is a very good, upper level Greek of someone well educated. The context of Luke 19 is the same day as the Triumphant Entry. Jesus left the area across the Jordan River (to the east of Jordan) early that morning, walked through Jericho (healed blind man) and was preparing to climb the assent from Jericho to Bethany. Tough walk, altogether probably 10-15 miles. A huge crowd is tagging along. As he goes through Jericho, Jesus has his encounter with Zaccheaus, a Jewish tax collector for the Romans that would have been one of the most despised Jews in the entire city. Jesus accepts Zaccheus repentance and says that salvation has come to his house, calling Zack a true son of Abraham. He then stops for lunch with Zack. Guaranteed to irritate the Pharisees and the Sadducees and the Zeolots to no end. Luke explains why Jesus told the parable in v. 11: “He (Jesus) went on to tell them a parable, because he was near Jerusalem and the people though that the kingdom of God was going to appear at once.” The people had a misunderstanding of Messiah. They thought Jesus was coming in to town to overthrow the Romans and set up a physical kingdom of God on earth and that He would sit on David’s thrown and they, the oppressed downtrodden Jews, would be in charge under his reign. Jesus knew this, so he wanted to let them know (a) that he, the King, was going away, but would eventually return, (b) that they wouldn’t know when he would return, and (c) that they had to be good stewards while he was gone. So he tells them this parable. In the parable, the King gives 10 servants 10 measures of money. He tells them to put it to work until he comes back. His subjects rejected his kingship. When he returned, he asked his servants to give an account of their actions. The first two, even though getting different results, were both told the same thing. “Well done.” Each was then given more responsibility. The one servant, who fundamentally did not understand his master’s character, was afraid, and only had the original amount to return to his master. He was chastised, but not cast out. He didn’t stop being a servant, he just didn’t get any future opportunity. These three servants are contrasted with the enemies, who were destroyed at the master’s return. Jesus then leaves and goes on to Jerusalem for the Triumphant Entry, the passion week, and crucifixion. Parables are not theological writings. They are not intended for us to create doctrine or dogma from. They are illustrations, something literally “thrown along side of” to illustrate one or at most few aspects of truth that the audience at the time needed to hear. Here’s what the original hearers should have understood from the story. The message was for those right there, specific to those expecting a military messiahship and an immediate ruling kingdom: 1. Jesus was not at that time going to overthrow the Romans and reign in Jerusalem. 2. He was going to go away with a promise to return at some undefined time in the future. 3. He was going to leave his servants with certain assets to use in his absence for his benefit. 4. There would be an accounting when he returned. 5. Faithful servants would be rewarded with more responsibility/opportunity. 6. Servants who did not understand their Master’s character and did not obey would not be killed or stop being servants, but would not be rewarded like the more faithful servants were. So, what are the enduring principles we learn from that? 1. Jesus actually did go away and hasn’t come back yet. 2. Jesus expects us, his servants, to use his assets for his benefit as stewards until he gets back. 3. We will give an accounting for our stewardship. 4. We will be rewarded for faithful service, and chastised for less than faithful service, but all who are servants are still servants after the accounting. 5. God’s enemies are in trouble. So, how do we apply that to our lives? 1. Be good stewards of all God entrusts to us.
Lord have mercy RK, and this is something you wrote on the fly? Well done. Is there a significance to the upper lever Greek as opposed to lower level? So it was given (the parable) to get the believing & unbelieving, a view into non-military messiah-ship as you said in #1 below? Questions/thoughts are in your quotes RK...
My responses in RED. 1. I have no idea what the implication of the additional responsibility after the accounting entails. The passage doesn't say. Personnally, I'm hoping for command of a starship. 2. The accountability determination is the bema, which is only about faithfulness of believers and has nothing to do with salvation. It would be speculation to apply what is clearly a post-return accounting to a present day accounting. 3. The people in vs. 26 are God's servants, the one's that weren't good stewards. They are not God's enemies. God's enemies are those identified in vs. 27.
My apologies sir. Typo. I meant v27. I had you pegged for a Trekker. Dreadnought Class? No, I was sure the Bema had nothing to do with salvation determination. It's my belief that the Great White Throne is reserved for the lost. Thank you. Anyone else want to throw in?
I'm an old school Trekkie. My starship of choice is the Nike (Battlecruiser) from the Honor Harrington series by David Weber.
Tim, I read what RK wrote and I read the follow responses between you and he. RK’s commentary was great in my opinion. I thought you asked some good questions and I agree with the discussion about those. So I really have nothing to add except I didn’t a response to your Great White Throne comment. So I will say my understanding is the same as yours. The GWT is a judgment of non-believers. In regard to the high level Greek, I’ve read in commentaries that Luke 1:1-4 is the highest level Greek of the NT. I have to take that on faith in the comments of those who say such. My Greek knowledge isn’t anywhere near good enough to state one way or another. But I’ll pres the “I believe” button on that. Doesn’t change what I’ll eat for lunch.
Without a shadow of a doubt I believe that. Interesting that I've never seen a commentary on verse 27, which is a strong wording to say the least.