There were no unbelievers in that parable. In both examples, the servant was the servant.You’re wantonly neglecting the unbelievers, and therefore, the extent and breadth of the punishment articulated in the conclusion.
And yet, I can understand why you don’t see unbelievers.There were no unbelievers in that parable. In both examples, the servant was the servant.
You don’t get to be a servant without being hired, and you don’t get hired if you don’t know and believe in the Master.
I can’t understand why that isn’t perfectly obvious.
We’re still talking about the servant who either obeyed or did not obey, right?And yet, I can understand why you don’t see unbelievers.
The second didn’t start off the same as the first, as indicated by the contrasting conjunction, “but,” (v 45) which sets the second wicked servant in stark contrast to the faithful, sensible and blessed servant.
The parable itself deals with Christians and Christ’s teaching Christians the importance of being ready. The immediate context of the parable is established a few verses before:There were no unbelievers in that parable. In both examples, the servant was the servant.
You don’t get to be a servant without being hired, and you don’t get hired if you don’t know and believe in the Master.
I can’t understand why that isn’t perfectly obvious.
He didn’t become wicked until he sinned. Before that, he was a believer, as evidenced by the fact that he was hired on as a servant.
)Guess you’ve never come up against a grammatical construction you can’t ignore.He didn’t become wicked until he sinned. Before that, he was a believer, as evidenced by the fact that he was hired on as a servant.
(You don’t hire anyone for your business who doesn’t believe in you and support your business goals, do you?
There is only one servant - the faithful and wise steward. The “faithful” and “wise” describes the steward at the time he is given his position of authority.
“BUT,” that second slave is wicked, while the first is faithful, sensible and blessed.
2And the Lord said, "Who then is the faithful and sensible steward, whom his master will put in charge of his servants, to give them their rations at the proper time?Guess you’ve never come up against a grammatical construction you can’t ignore.
You’re grasping at the straw presented by Mikeledes, and you’re joining him in his quibble (heaven knows that the Catholic must exceed the protestant in his understanding of God’s word.)
That is pure conjecture designed to support your man made dogma.
This is clearly about choices made by one servant.
**Same set of circumstances.
Clearly Christ has in mind two different types of servants.
And, IMO, you’d do well to work on your reading comprehension.
:
Christ did not describe a choice, BUT, what in fact each different servant did.
Clearly Christ has in mind two different types of servants.No. There were not two different servants. There was only one servant. He started out faithful. He then had a choice. Jesus is showing the outcome of each of his two choices. If he chooses to obey, he will be blessed. If he chooses to disobey, he will be cursed. The outcome is based on his behaviour; not on his initial character. He doesn’t become “wicked” until he begins to behave wickedly.
**Same set of circumstances.
Clearly Christ has in mind two different types of servants.**Same set of circumstances.
**Two different attitudes.
Two different responses.
Two different outcomes.
One wicked, and the other faithful, sensible and blessed.
**Same set of circumstances.
“That servant” = the same guy.
If he obeys, he is faithful, sensible, and blessed. If he sins, he is wicked.
Jesus is telling us that we have the choice, by means of our behaviour, either to become blessed, or to become cursed.
Clearly Christ has in mind two different types of servants.