And as they heard these things, he added and spoke a parable, because he was near to Jerusalem, and because they thought that the kingdom of God should immediately appear.
And as they heard these things, he added and spoke a parable, because he was near to Jerusalem, and because they thought that the kingdom of God should immediately appear.
And as they heard these things, he added and spake a parable, because he was nigh to Jerusalem, and because they supposed that the kingdom of God was immediately to appear.
And while they were giving ear to these words, he made another story for them, because he was near Jerusalem, and because they were of the opinion that the kingdom of God was coming straight away.
And as they heard these things, he added and spoke a parable, because he was nigh to Jerusalem, and because they thought that the kingdom of God would immediately appear.
As they heard these things, he went on and told a parable, because he was near Jerusalem, and they supposed that the Kingdom of God would be revealed immediately.
And as they heard these things, he added and spake a parable, because he was nigh to Jerusalem, and because they supposed that the kingdom of God was immediately to appear.
And as they heard these things - I believe the participle of the present tense, here, is used for the participle of the past, or rather that the participle of the present conveys sometimes the sense of the past; for this discourse appears to have taken place the next day after he had lodged at the house of Zaccheus; for the text says that he was then drawing nigh to Jerusalem, from which Jericho was distant nineteen miles. I have not ventured to translate it so, yet I think probably the text should be read thus: And after they had heard these things, he proceeded to speak a parable, because they were nigh to Jerusalem.
Immediately appear - Perhaps the generality of his followers thought that, on his arrival at Jerusalem, he would proclaim himself king.
He spake a parable - This parable has in some respects a resemblance to the parable of the "talents" in Matthew 25:14-28, but it is not the same. They differ in the following respects: That was spoken "after" he had entered Jerusalem; this, while on his way there. That was delivered on the Mount of Olives; this, in the house of Zacchaeus. That was delivered to teach them the necessity of "improving" the talents committed to them; this was for a different design. He was now near Jerusalem. A great multitude attended him. His disciples regarded him as the Messiah, and by this they understood a temporal prince who should deliver them from the dominion of the Romans and set them at liberty. They were anxious for that, and supposed that the time was at hand, and that "now," as soon as he entered Jerusalem, he would assume the appearance of such a prince and set up his kingdom. To "correct that notion" seems to have been the main design of this parable. To do that, he tells them of a man who had a right to the kingdom, yet who, "before" taking possession of it, went into another kingdom to receive a confirmation of his title, thus intimating that "he" would also go away "before" he would completely set up his kingdom Luke 19:12; he tells them that this nobleman left to his servants "property" to be improved in his absence, as "he" would leave to his disciples "talents" to be used in his service Luke 19:12-13; he tells them that this nobleman was rejected by his own citizens Luke 19:14, as "he" would be by the Jews; and that he received the kingdom and called them to an account, as he also would his own disciples.
Because he was nigh to Jerusalem - The capital of the country, and where they supposed he would probably set up his kingdom.
The kingdom of God should immediately appear - That the reign of the Messiah would immediately commence. He spoke the parable to "correct" that expectation.
19:11 They thought the kingdom of God - A glorious temporal kingdom, would immediately appear.