A distant land

 A Distant Land

By Richard P. Joseph

    Luke 19:11-27 describes the second coming of Christ in, what would have been to a first century Jew, unmistakable terminology.  Any bible reader that is not familiar with first century Middle Eastern culture might still be scratching their heads trying to figure out what this passage is really all about.  At best it might be about being responsible for the tasks that God has given you to perform but that is only a shadow of what this parable is about.  

    Jesus tells a story about a certain nobleman who was to go to a distant land in order to receive a kingdom.  As a young Christian I really had no clue what that really meant.  Moreover, the people also sent a delegation in order to stop this nobleman from receiving his kingdom.  However, the nobleman did succeed in acquiring his kingdom and returned, not only to reward his faithful but also to punish the unworthy as well as execute the delegation that opposed him.  

    Being a preterist, one is forced to apply certain hermeneutical parameters such as audience relevance and historical context when attempting to interpret scripture.  Using these techniques, the reader can then understand what those that first heard this parable would think.  A major mistake made by modern day new Christains is that they do not apply these techniques to their scripture reading and nearly always come up with the wrong interpretation.  So, what was Jesus actually alluding to and what was his message from this parable?

    Jesus was born in Bethlehem of Judea, which belonged to the state of Israel.  Israel however was an occupant of the Roman empire.  In those days any, would be, ruler of any occupied country would need the permission of the Roman emperor.  It goes something like this; When Herod the Great sought the throne of Israel he had to first go to a distant land, Rome, and stand before Caesar.  If Caesar approved then Herod (or whomever) would become what is called a vassal king.  Usually when someone in those days would seek such authority a hostile delegation would also appear at the hearing almost similar to our current system of choosing a federal judge.  They were allowed to make their case and Caesar would make the final decision.  According to Josephus, Herod got the nod from caesar and when Herod returned as a king to his kingdom he straightway butchered his opponents.  This was normal operating procedure pretty much until the United States introduced a much more civil system of power transfer.  Back then if one aspired to high office he didn’t go campaigning door to door seeking votes; nay, he gathered an army and murdered the king and his entire family.  That is how one acquired political office in those days and in that culture.  In fact that was the normal world before the United States.  The Democratic Party is attempting to take us backwards to those days again.  The parable that Jesus taught was easily understood by those sitting there listening to him.  They didn’t, however, understand how it would all play out.  

    It played out exactly like God planned it to.  The Jews played it out each year during the feast of atonement when the high priest would enter the Holy of Holies and present the blood of the lamb for the forgiveness of sins and then reappear to the waiting crowd.  After Jesus was murdered, he then went to a distant land (heaven) where he presented his blood to the father.  He then reappeared in AD 70 as a king and straightway butchered his enemies (the unbelieving Jews) and has been reigning on earth ever since never to be removed by anyone.  Those that were given the talents were the leaders of Israel.   Some were successful and some were not.   Jesus' kingdom has been established for all time and eternity.