“A nobleman traveled to a far country to receive for himself authority to be king and then to return” (Luke 19:12). With these words Jesus introduced a parable to his disciples that was meant to correct their thinking about his glorious kingdom. But how exactly had they gotten the kingdom wrong? What was their misconception and how had they fallen prey to it? These are really important questions, and the way we answer them is largely going to be based on the presuppositions we bring with us to the text. I know that this seems counter-intuitive. Shouldn’t we answer this question by looking at the text and let Jesus (or Luke) give us an explanation? Well, yes. But that is one of those presuppositions, isn’t it? We (I) presuppose that the answers we seek, if they are to be found, will be in the text itself. And I would go even further to say that the answer must be found in the immediate context, if we are to have any real confidence that we have got it right. If we are forced to go outside the immediate neighborhood to explain a passage of Scripture, then I’m afraid we have introduced too great a deal of human reason to have any measure of certainty about the meaning.
So what does the immediate context teach us about the disciples’ misconception and the purpose and meaning of Jesus’ parable? Luke explains the purpose in v.11, saying, “As they were listening to this, he went on to tell them a parable because he was near Jerusalem, and they thought the kingdom of God was going to appear right away.” They didn’t misunderstand the nature of the kingdom, nor were they wrong to look forward to it with great anticipation. Their mistake was in expecting it to dawn immediately upon Jesus’ arrival at Jerusalem. They, like us, were slow of heart to believe everything that the prophets had spoken about the Christ, that he should be killed and buried and rise again the third day. But they were not at all mistaken in thinking that this same Jesus would reign as king in Jerusalem – at least he does not disabuse them of that belief, he only teaches them to expect a lengthy delay before his kingdom becomes a reality.
Luke introduces Jesus’ parable to us with this simple observation, and in so doing provides an invaluable guideline to help us interpret the entire lesson. What is Jesus trying to teach the disciples? His kingdom is not coming immediately or even for a lengthy period of time. In order to receive the kingdom, he must go far away (it turns out to heaven itself!) and then return. How much time will pass in between? He doesn’t say, but the fact that one servant earns 1000% return and another 500% suggests they were long-term investments. While we may be tempted to try to identify various symbols within the parable, one theme remains central: the kingdom will come, but only after a lengthy delay.
As they were listening to this, he went on to tell them a parable because he was near Jerusalem, and they thought the kingdom of God was going to appear right away.
Luke 19:11 CSB
It is interesting that William Hendriksen took a very different view of this parable.1 Here’s how he described v.11 and the purpose of Jesus’ parable: “He did this in order to correct certain harmful ideas that were being spread; especially the notion that now the kingdom of God was immediately going to appear, the kingdom of outward, earthly, Jewish splendor.”2 Now I’ve got no beef with the first part, that Jesus corrected their thinking about the timing of the kingdom and that this misconception was indeed harmful. That is, in fact, precisely the failure he hopes to prevent by warning his disciples about the wicked servant who hid his Master’s mina instead of investing it during his lengthy absence. But where did Hendriksen get the notion that Jesus wanted to correct their ideas about a kingdom of “outward, earthly, Jewish splendor”?
Hendriksen explained further, and I’ll quote him at length before offering my own comments:
That the people in general were constantly looking for such a kingdom is clear from John 6:15. That even the minds of the Twelve continued for a long time to be filled with such expectations can be learned from Mark 10:35-45 (the request of the sons of Zebedee) and Acts 1:6.
It was especially the Passover Festival, with its many reminders of the glorious deliverance from Egypt, that fanned the embers of the revolutionary spirit. Moreover, the closer these pilgrims drew to Jerusalem, from which leadership in any such upheaval was expected, the more also the hope of instant deliverance rose.3
It seems that Hendriksen takes this view because of his interpretation of certain NT passages and the historical and political setting of the events. What should we make of the people’s expectation of the kingdom in John 6:15? They were responding to Jesus’ feeding of 5,000 men and concluded, “This truly is the Prophet who is to come into the world.” And so the people meant to take Jesus “by force to make him king,” at which point Jesus withdrew himself from them. Were the people wrong to conclude that Jesus was the Prophet Moses had predicted?4 Hendriksen didn’t think so. In his commentary on that verse he says, “They identified Jesus with the prophet of Deut. 18:15-18. So far so good.”5 But Hendriksen objected to the nature of their expectation, saying that even if they considered Jesus to be Messiah, they were looking for an earthly, political king, who was associated with what Hendriksen calls “Pharisaic hope.” What that is, he does not explain, but he clearly believed that Jesus’ intention was to establish an entirely different kind of kingdom. He even cites John 18:36, a very different context indeed, in which Jesus says to Pilate, “My kingdom is not of this world.” (Remember what I said previously about my own interpretive presupposition and what happens when we abandon the immediate context to find an explanation.) In other words, for reasons that are entirely outside the text of Luke 19, William Hendriksen concludes that Jesus’ disciples were wrong about the nature of his kingdom and not just its timing. It is entirely possible to read John 6:15 and come to the conclusion that Jesus avoided being made king by the Jewish mob not because they were wrong to think he should rule from Jerusalem, but that they, too, were incorrect in thinking his kingdom should come immediately.
We come to the same conclusion with his reference to Mark 10:35-45. This is the incident where James and John asked Jesus if they could have the seats to his left and right in his kingdom. Hendriksen is correct to note that this proves the Twelve continued to expect an earthly kingdom which involves actual thrones. Jesus did not rebuke them by saying that the kingdom was not of “outward, earthly, Jewish splendor,” but told them this was not the purpose for his presence on earth at that point. Again, it is perfectly reasonable to conclude that Jesus was referring only to his first coming when he said, “For even the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many.” Hendriksen would not deny that Christ is coming again, and that he will indeed come in judgment and royal authority, where his first coming was in humility for the purpose of suffering death as an atoning sacrifice for sin.
And what of Acts 1:6? Hendriksen before writing his commentary on Acts, but the verse also leaves us searching for evidence that Jesus corrected his disciples’ thinking about the nature of the kingdom and not just its timing. In fact, the disciples’ question there related directly to the timing of the kingdom being restored to Israel. And Jesus’ answer goes right to the issue of timing and does not at all suggest the kingdom is of anything other than “outward, earthly, Jewish splendor.” He told them, “It is not for you to know times or periods that the Father has set by his own authority” (Acts 1:7). They were to serve as Christ’s witnesses to the world.
This brings us back to Hendriksen’s comments on the parable of Luke 19:11-27. He claimed Jesus intended to combat the disciples’ harmful views of the kingdom in three ways. Let me quote them:
a. the kingdom he proclaims is not confined to one particular nation: nowhere in the parable is there even a hint of obtaining political freedom;
b. its outward manifestation is not a matter of the immediate future (see verse 12); and
c. everyone should be faithful in the performance of his God-given duties. On the day of the final judgment it is faithfulness that will be rewarded, unfaithfulness punished (verses 15-27).6
It is eye-opening to recognize that a. is based solely on the silence of the passage regarding the Jews obtaining political freedom. Even Hendriksen seemed to realize that the parable didn’t directly teach what he claimed was Jesus’ primary intent, namely that the disciples were wrong to expect a kingdom of “outward, earthly, Jewish splendor.” Additionally, I would suggest that he is exactly wrong here to say that there is no mention whatsoever of such political freedom. In the parable the good servants are each rewarded by being given authority to rule over cities. Where some may assume this is merely metaphorical, it seems to me perfectly reasonable to conclude Jesus was treating the kingdom in the parable the same way his disciples conceived of it – a literal, earthly domain. There are other details of the parable which Hendriksen recognizes as literally true. For instance, the destruction of the nobleman’s enemies isn’t a mere metaphor – Jesus’ enemies will one day be struck down before him! Hendriksen readily admitted this, saying, “As to the parable’s ultimate meaning, the reference is to what will happen to Christ rejectors when he returns.”7 Hendriksen’s mistake is allowing theological presuppositions to control Bible interpretation. Luke gave us a direct explanation for the parable: to disabuse the Twelve of the idea that the kingdom would appear when they arrived in Jerusalem. While Hendriksen clearly saw this as a major theme (see b. and c. above), he added another, derived from silence, and even gave it primacy over the one recorded by the Scriptural author!
But it’s even worse than that, because Hendriksen’s view of the kingdom denies the revealed intent of the parable, namely, that the kingdom would be long-delayed until the nobleman’s return. Consider his explanation of v.12: “What Jesus was really telling his audience, in symbolical phraseology, was probably this, that he himself, at the conclusion of his suffering, would ascend to the Father in heaven; that the Father, as a reward upon the Son’s accomplished mediatorial work, would cause him to sit at his right hand, thereby bestowing on him rulership over the entire universe in the interest of his church (Eph. 1:20-23); and that from heaven he would return to earth after a long (but indefinite) time, symbolized by ‘the far country’ to which the nobleman of the parable was wending his way.”8 If he is correct in believing the kingdom is inward, spiritual, and Gentile-focused (related primarily to the church, not Israel), then the beginning of the kingdom was going to come shortly at Jerusalem! If the problem Jesus intended to correct was his disciples’ misplaced assumptions about the nature of the kingdom, then Luke was wrong to say Jesus spoke the parable because they were confused about it’s immanence. In trying to maintain his theological beliefs a priori, Hendriksen necessarily errs in his understanding. And this is true for anyone who only inconsistently seeks answers to the meaning of a text within that particular text.
We need to believe the biblical writers were capable of communicating their meaning by what they wrote, and intentionally limit ourselves to it. If we do not, we risk mishandling the precious word of God. I do not believe William Hendriksen or the many godly men and women who share his theological presuppositions intend to misread Scripture or misconstrue its meaning. But I think they do so nonetheless, and this passage provides just one example of it. If we allow our theology to take the driver’s seat in Bible interpretation, we risk blurring the Spirit’s intended message or even contradicting it altogether. In the case of Jesus’ parable in Luke 19 we might think that the kingdom has already come, even though our Lord has not yet returned from heaven, because he is ruling the whole universe from beside his Father’s throne. We might think we should expect a spiritual kingdom in our hearts. Neither of these is based on what Luke wrote or Jesus said. Instead we do business until he comes, because his earthly reign and judgment seat await his return from that far country.
1Hendriksen was a pastor in the Christian Reformed Church and held to a very different view of Christ’s kingdom as his commentary on this parable makes clear.
2William Hendriksen, Exposition of the Gospel According to Luke (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1978), 858.
3Ibid., 858-859.
4This is most likely a reference to Deuteronomy 18:15 where Moses said, “The LORD your God will raise up for you a prophet like me from among you…”
5William Hendriksen, Exposition of the Gospel According to John, Volume 1 (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1953), 223.
6Hendriksen, Luke, 859.
7Ibid, 863.
8Ibid., 859
