Luke 19: 24 “And he said to those who stood by, ‘Take the mina from him, and give it to him who has ten minas.’ 25 (But they said to him, ‘Master, he has ten minas.’) 26 ‘For I say to you, that to everyone who has will be given; and from him who does not have, even what he has will be taken away from him.
I find it interesting that both parables, though different, have one theme: the recipients were supposed to use what they had been given to enrich the master. The talents or minas were to be put to use to further the master's estate, not that of the servant.
In Christianity, this would mean that we are to work for the advancement of the Kingdom of Christ in whatever circumstance we find ourselves and are to employ whatever we have at our disposal. Whether we personally benefit from it or not is irrelevant, however, we should keep in mind that this is not a one-way street. Scripture promises that those who perform well will be compensated. "Well done, good and faithful servant, enter into the joy of your Lord.", and, "As you give, you will receive, good measure, pressed down, overflowing."
With the onset of old age approaching, I am finding this much easier to understand. And to be far more compliant and comfortable with the direction.
One major difference between the talents in Matt 25 and the minas in Luke 19, is that in the former, the talents are given out unequally, and in the latter the minas are given out equally. So it would make sense that the talents are equated with our individual spiritual gifts and abilities and the minas are equated with the gift of the Gospel itself. The combined lesson of both is that if we do not use our individual gifts and abilities to spread the Gospel we will likely be punished by Christ upon His Second Coming. Conversely, if we do use them to do this, we will have Heavenly rewards.
Another difference is that the Luke parable mentions what to do with those of the kingdom who reject the reign of the king.
"But as for those my enemies, who would not have me reign over them, bring them hither, and kill them before me."
Wow. I wonder how the "He gets us" crowd would interpret this passage? I think so many American Christians forget the righteousness of Christ because they focus too much on His mercy (once saved, always saved, etc.).
This seems to be yet another clear example that the parables are not morality tales (that we should model our society on), but are used instead to describe the nature of our relationship with the Kingdom of God. Those who reject Christ when He comes again will be cast out into outer darkness.
"God seeks allies and fellow-laborers."
Our works here on Earth are vitally important, both to God's Will and our own Salvation. It is made clear over and over and over in Holy Scripture that we will be judged based on our works, and that this will have a large say in our final destination.
I find N.T. Wright intelligent and makes some interesting points on things. But I think he tries to be too clever and is innovative in his interpretation. His new perspective on Paul stuff is right up to the line of heresy if it doesn't cross it. Also, he had open disdain for American Christianity. It makes it hard for me to read him.
As far as the parable, maybe the point is that a saving faith is one that bears fruit. It is like the Israelites who were not born again, had no fruit even though they received a spiritual inheritance. Similar to people now who grow in Christian circles but never have genuine faith. They have all received something of value from God, but have chosen not to use it.
It is a helpful way to begin a Lenten day by following your reflection upon the Scriptures! N.T. Wright: I also found him helpful, so this take on the Second Coming is quite disappointing, especially since a belief in that event was embodied in the Nicene Creed. Doubly disappointing, since Bishop Wright is one of the few, in my opinion, contemporary conservative Anglican theologians. How things have changed: fifty years ago there was a treasure trove of orthodox theologians in the Anglican Communion.
Metropolitan Hilarion offers a cite, a book by Wright: Jesus and the Victory of God, pgs 574 - 576.
Of course, I did not check the book, however there are many comments online to be found describing Wright's views on the Second Coming. If interested, here is one (but do a search on the topic, and you can find many):
Wright offers that he has been misunderstood on this point, but given the many who have "misunderstood" him, it seems, at best, his views on the topic are confusing.
I cannot say more about it than this. Perhaps he is misunderstood, perhaps not. I suspect it would take the study of several of his works to gain some understanding of his position. Or, maybe he discusses this himself in an online post or video?
I find it interesting that both parables, though different, have one theme: the recipients were supposed to use what they had been given to enrich the master. The talents or minas were to be put to use to further the master's estate, not that of the servant.
In Christianity, this would mean that we are to work for the advancement of the Kingdom of Christ in whatever circumstance we find ourselves and are to employ whatever we have at our disposal. Whether we personally benefit from it or not is irrelevant, however, we should keep in mind that this is not a one-way street. Scripture promises that those who perform well will be compensated. "Well done, good and faithful servant, enter into the joy of your Lord.", and, "As you give, you will receive, good measure, pressed down, overflowing."
With the onset of old age approaching, I am finding this much easier to understand. And to be far more compliant and comfortable with the direction.
One major difference between the talents in Matt 25 and the minas in Luke 19, is that in the former, the talents are given out unequally, and in the latter the minas are given out equally. So it would make sense that the talents are equated with our individual spiritual gifts and abilities and the minas are equated with the gift of the Gospel itself. The combined lesson of both is that if we do not use our individual gifts and abilities to spread the Gospel we will likely be punished by Christ upon His Second Coming. Conversely, if we do use them to do this, we will have Heavenly rewards.
Another difference is that the Luke parable mentions what to do with those of the kingdom who reject the reign of the king.
"But as for those my enemies, who would not have me reign over them, bring them hither, and kill them before me."
Wow. I wonder how the "He gets us" crowd would interpret this passage? I think so many American Christians forget the righteousness of Christ because they focus too much on His mercy (once saved, always saved, etc.).
This seems to be yet another clear example that the parables are not morality tales (that we should model our society on), but are used instead to describe the nature of our relationship with the Kingdom of God. Those who reject Christ when He comes again will be cast out into outer darkness.
"God seeks allies and fellow-laborers."
Our works here on Earth are vitally important, both to God's Will and our own Salvation. It is made clear over and over and over in Holy Scripture that we will be judged based on our works, and that this will have a large say in our final destination.
Really good observations. Thank you.
I find N.T. Wright intelligent and makes some interesting points on things. But I think he tries to be too clever and is innovative in his interpretation. His new perspective on Paul stuff is right up to the line of heresy if it doesn't cross it. Also, he had open disdain for American Christianity. It makes it hard for me to read him.
As far as the parable, maybe the point is that a saving faith is one that bears fruit. It is like the Israelites who were not born again, had no fruit even though they received a spiritual inheritance. Similar to people now who grow in Christian circles but never have genuine faith. They have all received something of value from God, but have chosen not to use it.
https://thecrosssectionrmb.blogspot.com/
It is a helpful way to begin a Lenten day by following your reflection upon the Scriptures! N.T. Wright: I also found him helpful, so this take on the Second Coming is quite disappointing, especially since a belief in that event was embodied in the Nicene Creed. Doubly disappointing, since Bishop Wright is one of the few, in my opinion, contemporary conservative Anglican theologians. How things have changed: fifty years ago there was a treasure trove of orthodox theologians in the Anglican Communion.
Metropolitan Hilarion offers a cite, a book by Wright: Jesus and the Victory of God, pgs 574 - 576.
Of course, I did not check the book, however there are many comments online to be found describing Wright's views on the Second Coming. If interested, here is one (but do a search on the topic, and you can find many):
https://jrichardmiddleton.com/2014/06/02/does-tom-wright-believe-in-the-second-coming/
Wright offers that he has been misunderstood on this point, but given the many who have "misunderstood" him, it seems, at best, his views on the topic are confusing.
I cannot say more about it than this. Perhaps he is misunderstood, perhaps not. I suspect it would take the study of several of his works to gain some understanding of his position. Or, maybe he discusses this himself in an online post or video?