Are we required to kill unbelievers?

[TrueMyth]

To summarize my position in a few words:


1. Let us assume for the sake of argument that your interpretation is correct: We are to kill unbelievers now, today.

1a. Even so, Luke 19:27 is hermeneutically questionable. Therefore, we ought to subject it to other, better supported passages.​

1b. We see in Jesus' other, better supported teachings, clear contradiction of this interpretation of Luke 19:27​

1c. Therefore, we ought to prefer Jesus' other teachings over this interpretation of Luke 19:27​

2. However, I do not think your interpretation is correct.

2a. Verse 15 clearly sets the action following after the king's return-- to Christians, at the judgment​

2b. Therefore, since verse 27 is contained in the same parable and occurs after verse 15, any command contained in it must be taking place at the judgment.​

2c. For this reason, it is incorrect to interpret verse 27 as a command for Christians to kill unbelievers now, today.​

3. Finally, the entire passage is a parable.

3a. The purpose of a parable is to convey a core essential truth through some metaphorical device.​

3b. The specific metaphorical device is only relevant in so far as it is related to the core essential truth of the parable.​

3c. The core truth of this parable is quite clearly that all will be judged for their actions, and to call the "servants" to make good use of the gifts they are given.​

3d. From (2c), it is clear that to interpret verse 27 as a call to kill infidels is improper in the context of the parable.​

4. It is obvious then, that verse 27 cannot be interpreted as a call to kill infidels on Earth, since to do so is neither internally consistent, good interpretive technique, or contextually supported.

 

[hithesh]

We should serve God both because we love Him and fear Him. Both are present in the Bible, and both ought to be followed. Also, be careful on the meaning of the word "fear" here. I have done some fairly extensive study into this word, because I always found it wierd that God asks us to be afraid of Him. As the result of this study, I think that the better word in English for the original Hebrew is "awe".

Now, you have just said both serving god out of love and serving god out of fear, are present in the bible, but so are passages about slaying unbelievers.The contradictions you pointed out, exists within the gospel, so I ask that we also stay within the gospel.

Now, is serving god out of fear of him, anywhere in the gospel? Let's just think of it real world terms, should you become a servant of god, because you want to avoid going to hell so to say, or to avoid god's wrath? 1 John 4, says that "there is no fear in love, because fear has to do with punishment, so one who fears is not truly in love."

The fear in this parable is not "awe" or respect, it translates better to being scared, frightened, etc..

The servant's anger is no different, than the anger of a slave towards his slave owner, for reaping what he does not sow. If a slave is spiteful to his oppressor, is it the oppresor who is at fault, or the slave?? If the citizens of a certain kingdom did not desire a particular person, to rule over them, are the citizens at fault, or the particular person?

There is nothing redemtive about this passage, it's nasty all around, the servitute the Lord here asks of the servants, is deplorable in itself. If this was the Christ potrayed in the gospels, then I would not serve him, or desire him to be my king either.

The disciples left everything, and followed our Lord, because he produced in them, this deep love. You will find no fear of Jesus, in their servitude towards him. For the individuals who is willing to leave everything for god, does not do so, out of fear of him, but with a love, that has driven out fear.

If the king in the parable is not Christ, who is he? To avoid misunderstanding you, I would like to know what you think.

The god in this parable is human esteem, it's a God that certain people desire, such as the God of the Pharisees, and the God of those who called Zachiaus a sinner, both of them desired a god that would justify their actions. Rejoice in their sacrifice, and yet care little about their lack of mercy.

One can see, that Christ did not appreciate how some of the people refered to Zachiaus as a sinner, and yet those that treated him as such, thought it was okay, and they would still inherit the kingdom of God. Christ gives them a parable of such an inheritor, and sais that the the kingdom would not accept their rulership, and they would not be served, because they treated others unfairly, because they oppressed others.

In the passage after the parable, Christ shows how a true king should be, he showed how everyone served him, because he loved them, and they loved him, because he carried their burden, and did not add to their burden, because he freed them , and did not oppress them.

The pharisees return, and try to oppress the people, by telling Christ to oppress their happiness. And he said in doing so, their stones would cry out, just like the servant was oppressed and cried out.

And he says a very remarkable thing: "If you only knew what would give you peace", it's not what would give them peace, but what would give the oppressor peace.

For the oppressor to find peace, he would have to no longer oppress.

 

[TrueMyth]

Now, you have just said both serving god out of love and serving god out of fear, are present in the bible, but so are passages about slaying unbelievers.The contradictions you pointed out, exists within the gospel, so I ask that we also stay within the gospel.

I will play along, although I don't think I have to. But in the interest of continuing discussion, I will offer these verses:

Luke 18:1-8--"1Then Jesus told his disciples a parable to show them that they should always pray and not give up. 2He said: "In a certain town there was a judge who neither feared God nor cared about men. 3And there was a widow in that town who kept coming to him with the plea, 'Grant me justice against my adversary.'

4"For some time he refused. But finally he said to himself, 'Even though I don't fear God or care about men, 5yet because this widow keeps bothering me, I will see that she gets justice, so that she won't eventually wear me out with her coming!' " 6And the Lord said, "Listen to what the unjust judge says. 7And will not God bring about justice for his chosen ones, who cry out to him day and night? Will he keep putting them off? 8I tell you, he will see that they get justice, and quickly. However, when the Son of Man comes, will he find faith on the earth?"
(We see Jesus here calling a judge unjust for not fearing [being in awe of] God. Jesus also directly connects fear [awe] of God to helping the poor and defenseless. It appears fear [awe] of God is not altogether bad, since Jesus advocates it)

Luke 23:39-43--"39One of the criminals who hung there hurled insults at him: "Aren't you the Christ? Save yourself and us!"

40But the other criminal rebuked him. "Don't you fear God," he said, "since you are under the same sentence? 41We are punished justly, for we are getting what our deeds deserve. But this man has done nothing wrong."
42Then he said, "Jesus, remember me when you come into your kingdom." 43Jesus answered him, "I tell you the truth, today you will be with me in paradise."
(Fear [awe] of God is not being terrified of Him; it is recognizing Him for who He is and being aware of your position as subject to Him. It also means trusting Him because He is good. Jesus couldn't have thought fear of God was that bad, since that is part of what gets the thief into heaven)

In addition to these, there are numerous examples of fear of God in the Epistles and Acts. Not one is described negatively.

Now, is serving god out of fear of him, anywhere in the gospel? Let's just think of it real world terms, should you become a servant of god, because you want to avoid going to hell so to say, or to avoid god's wrath? 1 John 4, says that "there is no fear in love, because fear has to do with punishment, so one who fears is not truly in love."

The fear in this parable is not "awe" or respect, it translates better to being scared, frightened, etc..

I thought we were sticking to the Gospels... (jk)

I completely agree with your interpretation of the verse. What I disagree with is your application of it. It is quite true that 1 John 4 indicates that there is no fear in love, because fear is connected with punishment. The word used for fear here is certainly one of being scared or frightened. However, look at verses 16-17 immediately preceding verse 18, which you quoted: "16And so we know and rely on the love God has for us.
God is love. Whoever lives in love lives in God, and God in him. 17In this way, love is made complete among us so that we will have confidence on the day of judgment, because in this world we are like him."

The kind of fear we are to abolish in our love for God is the kind which is terrified of Him. If we are merely afraid of Hell, we don't really love God. God will probably still accept us, but He certainly will work further on us.

The servant's anger is no different, than the anger of a slave towards his slave owner, for reaping what he does not sow. If a slave is spiteful to his oppressor, is it the oppresor who is at fault, or the slave?? If the citizens of a certain kingdom did not desire a particular person, to rule over them, are the citizens at fault, or the particular person?

There is nothing redemtive about this passage, it's nasty all around, the servitute the Lord here asks of the servants, is deplorable in itself. If this was the Christ potrayed in the gospels, then I would not serve him, or desire him to be my king either.

The disciples left everything, and followed our Lord, because he produced in them, this deep love. You will find no fear of Jesus, in their servitude towards him. For the individuals who is willing to leave everything for god, does not do so, out of fear of him, but with a love, that has driven out fear.

A love that has driven out fear of retribution and condemnation: "For God did not send His Son into the world to condemn the world, but to save the world through Him" (John 3:17); "Therefore, there is now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus" (Rom. 8:1). The disciples followed Him with this love, but they also were in awe of him: "The men were amazed and asked 'What kind of man is this? Even the wind and the waves obey him!'" (Matt. 8:27); "When the crowd saw this, they were filled with awe; and they praised God, who had given such authority to men" (Matt. 9:8); "They were all filled with awe..." (Luke 1:65, 5:26, 7:16). Later, we are commanded by Paul: "Therefore, since we are receiving a kingdom that cannot be shaken, let us be thankful, and so worship God acceptably with reverence and awe" (Heb. 12:28). It is clear that this "fear" of the Lord is proper and acceptable, but not if it is the kind which is terrified or scared or frightened.

You asked, "If the citizens of a country do not desire a particular person to rule over them, are the citizens at fault or the person?" Be very careful here. I certainly hope you are not saying that every revolt in the history of the world was entirely justified. That is historically asinine. It depends on the circumstances. Broadly speaking, a revolt is justified in direct proportion to the corruption and wickedness of the leader-- the more of the one, the more of the other. However, we are speaking of the Perfect God here. There is not the slightest shred of wickedness or corruption in Him; therefore, any revolt is entirely and completely on the shoulders of the rebels. Or, if you prefer a more terrestrial analogy, what if we had a king who gave his subjects every good thing, comforted their wounds, and righted their wrongs? Would the subjects then be justified in revolting? Absolutely not.

So unless you are prepared to state that God is not perfectly good, we are left with this conclusion: any revolt against God as rightful king is unjustified in the extreme. The fault lies entirely on the heads of the rebels.

You can claim the passage in Luke 19 is deplorable, nasty, and unredemptive all you want. The punishment exacted on the rebels is just and warranted, and it takes place after many opportunities are given to repent. Your problem seems quite strongly to be less with the passage and more with Hell. If you want to begin a thread about that, I would be more than happy to join you. I've started one myself recently, in which I argue that Hell can be understood to be moral. I would be glad to engage in another if you wish.

 

[TOsteve]

I agree with what has been said about interpreting parables for what they are – simplified pictures of more complex events. Therefore parables themselves should not be taken literally. However, I’ve taken the time to reread Luke’s account of this particular parable and its interpretation seems very clear.

The “controversial” portion of the parable brought up in the original post – that this story illustrates that believers should be slaughtering unbelievers - does not exist. Its been mentioned already in this thread but the two key issues that need to be brought to light to make the interpretation of this parable very simple are the following:

1) Verse 15/Verse 22 “He was made king, however, and returned home..” / “...I will judge you by your own words…”

The time period at the end of the parable is clearly referring to the day of judgment at Christ’s second coming. So the execution of the fate of the wicked will occur at that time. This seems to line up pretty well with many other scriptures that describe Christ’s second coming, His role as judge and the fate of the wicked.

2) Verse 24: “Then he said to those standing by…”

This is referring to other servants near to the king at his return and can easily (and accurately) be interpreted as servants other than the ones to whom he entrusted the minas. It becomes even more obvious by looking at other scripture describing the day of judgment and the role the angels will play on that day that these servants are representative of angels.

When looking at this parable, especially in light of all other scriptures we can conclude the following:

- at the end of time believers will be rewarded for their actions on earth
- some will receive a greater reward than others
- Jesus will decide what the specific rewards to all believers will be
- the wicked will perish
- Jesus will decide who will perish
- Servants of Jesus will execute the death sentence to the wicked (these servants are described in other passages as angels)

We do not need to get into deciding whether or not Luke’s account is more or less accurate that the other synoptics. From everything I can see, the above interpretation of the parable is intrinsically reasonable and does not conflict with any other teachings about the day of judgment, the final fate of humanity or the role of Christ as judge.

Or am I missing something?

 

[TrueMyth]

The god in this parable is human esteem, it's a God that certain people desire, such as the God of the Pharisees, and the God of those who called Zachiaus a sinner, both of them desired a god that would justify their actions. Rejoice in their sacrifice, and yet care little about their lack of mercy.

One can see, that Christ did not appreciate how some of the people refered to Zachiaus as a sinner, and yet those that treated him as such, thought it was okay, and they would still inherit the kingdom of God. Christ gives them a parable of such an inheritor, and sais that the the kingdom would not accept their rulership, and they would not be served, because they treated others unfairly, because they oppressed others.

In the passage after the parable, Christ shows how a true king should be, he showed how everyone served him, because he loved them, and they loved him, because he carried their burden, and did not add to their burden, because he freed them , and did not oppress them.

The pharisees return, and try to oppress the people, by telling Christ to oppress their happiness. And he said in doing so, their stones would cry out, just like the servant was oppressed and cried out.

And he says a very remarkable thing: "If you only knew what would give you peace", it's not what would give them peace, but what would give the oppressor peace.

For the oppressor to find peace, he would have to no longer oppress.

You present a very interesting understanding of the parable here. Since it is a parable, I cannot dogmatically assert that my interpretation is right, but I can present the reasons why I see things this way.

I can appreciate the approach to the chronology of the parable by tying in Zacchaeus. If we ignore the considerations I have spent all this time attempting to get you to see, I can see why a person might see this parable as a cautionary tale by Jesus in the sense you describe. But that is only possible if we ignore Biblical scholarship and the clear meaning of the parable. Your position seems to be that we see in Luke 19:27 an unacceptable thing for Jesus to say. Therefore, we must interpret the parable as being a cautionary tale. However, since verse 15 clearly places verse 27 in context of final judgment, Luke 19:27 is only unacceptable for Jesus to say if Hell is unacceptable. And if you believe this, you are going to have to explain away an awful lot of Jesus' sayings, since it is the topic He speaks on a lot-- it is second only to money in the number of times it is mentioned. The interpretation that verse 27 is indicative of a command to kill infidels now, today, is absolutely and completely unsupported and false.

But let us allow your position some credence for the sake of argument. Let us say that the parable is to be interpreted as a cautionary tale against the god of human esteem, as seen in the Pharisees, et. al. Does this make sense?

1) Well, it seems that in the end the evil king won. The rebels (in your interpretation, those who know the true God) are slaughtered by the king (in your interpretation, the god of human esteem). Some parable. How uplifting.

2) In light of this, how are we to understand that the Pharisees (in your interpretation, the servants in the parable) are not to be allowed into the Kingdom? It seems they are; the only ones who aren't are the rebels (who serve the true God) and the bad servant (I suppose this is a Pharisee who is a bad Pharisee?...). Those in the parable who serve the king as he would wish are granted reward, and those who don't are viciously punished (again, all this is according to your interpretation). So what is the point of this parable? I need to have a point-by-point explanation of who each person in the parable represents.

3) To get out of this, you cannot say "Well, Jesus was simply trying to give an example of a bad king; right after he gave an example of a good king." There is verse 11: "While they were listening to this, he went on to tell them a parable, because he was near Jerusalem and the people thought that the kingdom of God was going to appear at once. " This parable is clearly about the kingdom of God. The parable was told because the people were expecting the kingdom of God; Jesus told it to explain what the kingdom of God would be like. Are the Pharisees in there or aren't they? Which person are they in the parable?

4) Finally, if you're so worried about removing fear from love of God, look at verses 20-21 of the same parable: "20Then another servant came and said, 'Sir, here is your mina; I have kept it laid away in a piece of cloth. 21I was afraid of you, because you are a hard man. You take out what you did not put in and reap what you did not sow.'" The unfaithful servant was afraid of the king, so he tucked his gifts away and did not use them. This is what Jesus is warning against: denying God's goodness, in spite of His gifts, because of fear.


Your interpretation of verse 27 has led you to reinterpret the whole parable in light of it. However, even if we allow your reinterpretation of the parable, it still has several problems with it which border on insensibility. I would still not be prepared, though, to acknowledge your interpretation of verse 27, since to do so is to ignore the clear meaning of the verse as being in the context of judgment after the return of the king (Christ). Either 1) you disagree that verses 11 and 15 puts verse 27 in this context (a point which you still have yet to answer), or 2) your difficulty is with final judgment, not this passage (in which case you also have to explain away Jesus' numerous other references to hell)

 

[TrueMyth]

I agree with what has been said about interpreting parables for what they are – simplified pictures of more complex events. Therefore parables themselves should not be taken literally. However, I’ve taken the time to reread Luke’s account of this particular parable and its interpretation seems very clear.

...

When looking at this parable, especially in light of all other scriptures we can conclude the following:

- at the end of time believers will be rewarded for their actions on earth
- some will receive a greater reward than others
- Jesus will decide what the specific rewards to all believers will be
- the wicked will perish
- Jesus will decide who will perish
- Servants of Jesus will execute the death sentence to the wicked (these servants are described in other passages as angels)

We do not need to get into deciding whether or not Luke’s account is more or less accurate that the other synoptics. From everything I can see, the above interpretation of the parable is intrinsically reasonable and does not conflict with any other teachings about the day of judgment, the final fate of humanity or the role of Christ as judge.

Or am I missing something?

Nope, you're not. My foray into Biblical hermeneutics was merely an attempt to make more clear to hithesh what was already patently clear to me-- the interpretation you just described. Perhaps I failed miserably in this endeavor!

I have pointed out several times to hithesh that verse 27 clearly takes place after Christ's return and at judgment; he has yet to respond to this fact. I'm tempted to ignore further what he says until he does answer this fact, since the situation is just becoming more and more confused as a result.

Your conclusions are precisely the core essential meaning of the parable which I have been harping on to hithesh. I ask him then: Are these conclusions what makes the parable deplorable, nasty, and unredemptive? If so, your real problem is final judgment, as I have supected all along. In which case, I have a strong tendency to view this thread as merely a sensationalistic front for promulgating those ideas.

 

[TOsteve]

Nope, you're not. My foray into Biblical hermeneutics was merely an attempt to make more clear to hithesh what was already patently clear to me-- the interpretation you just described. Perhaps I failed miserably in this endeavor!

Ahhh... I suspected something along those lines.

I just wanted to be clear that, as far as I can see, Luke's version of this parable does not contradict core biblical teaching.

You should be appluaded for your efforts in this thread, you've been both patient and articulate.

 

[doveofthelord]

no no no no,we arent supposed to kill any one not of the christain faith.its on the ten commandments do not kill.and as we all know the ten commandments was written by god.god does not want us to kill.unless he tells us to but i doubt it.

 

[HolyGuardianAngels]

(Luke 19:27) Now as for those enemies of mine who did not want me as their king, bring them here and slay them before me.'"

He's not saying he's going to slay his enemies, he's telling his servants to kill those who do not want him to be king?

Is our lord requiring us to start an inquisition to please him?

IS, IT AN INQUISTION

to DEFEND ones SELF / RELIGION . . .



When another RELIGION threatens to ALTER

your way-of-life and MAKE / compel you worship as they do . . . Do you NOT then, have the God Given RESPOSIBLITY to PROTECT your own BELIEFS . . .



Sacred Scripture is filled with the EXAMPLE of WAR . . . and wars NOT lost; but WON . . .

 

[hithesh]

You present a very interesting understanding of the parable here. Since it is a parable, I cannot dogmatically assert that my interpretation is right, but I can present the reasons why I see things this way.

I can appreciate the approach to the chronology of the parable by tying in Zacchaeus. If we ignore the considerations I have spent all this time attempting to get you to see, I can see why a person might see this parable as a cautionary tale by Jesus in the sense you describe. But that is only possible if we ignore Biblical scholarship and the clear meaning of the parable.

Now, I am not sure what you mean by ignoring "Biblical scholarship" and clear meaning of the parable.

I would like to say, that the gospel that typical Christians present, is not cohesive, believers do not realize this, because they are so accustomed to understanding the gospels, by tradional interpretations.

When I present Luke 19, to believers who were previously unfamilar with the passage, they claim the lord in the parable is not Christ, yet they do not know how to interpret the passage. What they then do, is seek out the guidance of interpretors of old, and then start to believe that the lord is Christ, but the problem with these old interpretations, is that they do not answer all the questions that arise in viewing the parable in full. I claim that every word, every varition of a term in the gospel, must be noted in full, a believer who sees the gospels as divine work, should not instantly assume that casting someone into "darkness and gnashing of teeth" is the same as casting someone into the "eternal fire", because one clearly notes a infinite punishment, while the other can be easily noted to perhaps be finite.

Your, previous claim, that perhaps I profess my interpretion, because I object to eternal punishment, is not true, because in the passage, and in the passage in Matthew 25, eternal punishment for the servant is not stated. There are many portions of the gospel that use a finite concept of punishment, and others that uses a clear eternal form of punishment, if one were to examine the passages pertaining to finite punishment, one can easily start to see a message relevant to the here and now, and not the here after.

Your position seems to be that we see in Luke 19:27 an unacceptable thing for Jesus to say. Therefore, we must interpret the parable as being a cautionary tale.

This is not true. The way in which individuals interpet the passage is fine, but it's in close examantion of the passage, that one sees a strong, abruption in the gospel narrative. Now, i would like to note that there is no reason what-so-ever to assume the lord in the parable is Christ. Because the passage, unlike other passages does not claim the Lord to be the Son of Man, nor does the passage claim to condemn individuals to eternal punishment. In the version given by your interpretation and the common interpretitation, the entire chapter, is deemed as incohesive, because different parts seem to not to relate to other parts of the parable. Luke 19, is presented as continuious passage, with transitions, between the various parts.


[quote ] But let us allow your position some credence for the sake of argument. Let us say that the parable is to be interpreted as a cautionary tale against the god of human esteem, as seen in the Pharisees, et. al. Does this make sense?

1) Well, it seems that in the end the evil king won. The rebels (in your interpretation, those who know the true God) are slaughtered by the king (in your interpretation, the god of human esteem). Some parable. How uplifting. [/quote]

I think, it's not fair to deem the citizens of the kingdom, as rebels. Particulary because the citizens objected to the King rulership, prior to him inheriting the kingdom, and they did so in a quite civil way, by sending a delegation to some Ruler, to say that they did not want this particular figure to be king. Nothing in the passage, leads us to assume that they rebeled against their new rulership. If we take the parable out of the outwordly sense you place it, one can agree, that the citizens behavior, was quite commendable.

2) In light of this, how are we to understand that the Pharisees (in your interpretation, the servants in the parable) are not to be allowed into the Kingdom? It seems they are; the only ones who aren't are the rebels (who serve the true God) and the bad servant (I suppose this is a Pharisee who is a bad Pharisee?...). Those in the parable who serve the king as he would wish are granted reward, and those who don't are viciously punished (again, all this is according to your interpretation). So what is the point of this parable? I need to have a point-by-point explanation of who each person in the parable represents.

Let's ask a question, would you say that the Pharisees worhiped a god that is quite different than the one we worship? Well, let's not say they are two different gods, but can we say that their version of God, stands in contrast to our version of God? One can easily assume the pharisees believed they were living righteously, and that they believed god approved of their conduct, do you agree?

Now what would be the characteristics of this God, that they believed was pleased with their behavior? Would you say the god they worshiped, is the god of there human esteem, and not the true god? Since the true god, opposed their behavior?

( I apologize, but I am in a bit of a hurry, so I could not confront all the questions raised by your previous post)

 

[TrueMyth]

...

 

[TrueMyth]

...

 

[RonnyRulz]

(Luke 19:27) Now as for those enemies of mine who did not want me as their king, bring them here and slay them before me.'"

He's not saying he's going to slay his enemies, he's telling his servants to kill those who do not want him to be king?

Is our lord requiring us to start an inquisition to please him?

There's a world of difference between a literal interpretation and a spiritual interpretation.

 

[TrueMyth]

To clear up one confusion we've been having so far: I actually don't believe the lord in the parable is Christ either. I believe it is God the Father. However, their actions will never be in contradiction.

Now, I am not sure what you mean by ignoring "Biblical scholarship" and clear meaning of the parable.

I would like to say, that the gospel that typical Christians present, is not cohesive, believers do not realize this, because they are so accustomed to understanding the gospels, by tradional interpretations.

When I present Luke 19, to believers who were previously unfamilar with the passage, they claim the lord in the parable is not Christ, yet they do not know how to interpret the passage. What they then do, is seek out the guidance of interpretors of old, and then start to believe that the lord is Christ, but the problem with these old interpretations, is that they do not answer all the questions that arise in viewing the parable in full. I claim that every word, every varition of a term in the gospel, must be noted in full, a believer who sees the gospels as divine work, should not instantly assume that casting someone into "darkness and gnashing of teeth" is the same as casting someone into the "eternal fire", because one clearly notes a infinite punishment, while the other can be easily noted to perhaps be finite.

In point of fact, while I am sure that I had come across Luke 19:27 at some point in my life, I never gave it another second's thought. I always thought that the king in the parable was Christ, even when you first presented it in the OP. Why? 1) Because we see no other parable where Jesus provides such a cautionary tale without clearly explaining His meaning, which means that this interpretation is a singular one if it is true; 2) Because it is clearly parallel to Matthew 25, which is obviously about Jesus/God as the subject; and 3) Because there was no contradiction with any of Jesus' other teacings, since the action in question clearly takes place after Christ's return and during judgment.

I have not arrived at my position as an ad hoc scramble to attempt to make the passage fit; I have always been here, and I arrived here initially through rational interpretation.

Yet again, I feel you display a tactic typical to atheists and hate-mongers: erect a strawman version of Christianity fit for a six year-old, and then proceed to tear it down. The real thing is robust, complex, and is not always plain on the face of things. I agree: if we nail every letter of the Bible down and interpret it as literally as possible, it is full of contradictions, absudities, and gobbledygook. However, since no Christian proposes that approach to the Bible, I wonder why it is in such vogue with the abovementioned people.

Eternal fire and darkness/weeping/gnashing of teeth are all contained in parables-- even when they are not, we need not assume that we interpret them strictly literally always. If hell is actually in the spiritual realm, we have little reason to suppose we can understand the minute workings of its torments in detail. Thus, we see Jesus using various metaphors, analogies, and parables to describe it; it is absolutely asinine to force these to be actual, completely literal descriptions. This is what I meant by ignoring Biblical scholarship. For goodness' sake, it's ignoring basic language principles! When we use a metaphor ("The sunset lit the sky on fire") or a similie ("The sunset lit the sky, like it was on fire"), we mean that at least one fact between the two is shared, but not all facts are shared. Thus, it is completely wrong-headed to say that when Jesus speaks of hell as both "eternal fire" and "darkness" in different places, He is being contradictory. Jesus is saying that Hell contains both pain and deprivation, which are by no means mutually exclusive. In fact, they work together quite well when the pain is deprivation of a loved one, or knowledge of some lost opportunity-- which is precisely what mature Christianity teaches.

Your, previous claim, that perhaps I profess my interpretion, because I object to eternal punishment, is not true, because in the passage, and in the passage in Matthew 25, eternal punishment for the servant is not stated. There are many portions of the gospel that use a finite concept of punishment, and others that uses a clear eternal form of punishment, if one were to examine the passages pertaining to finite punishment, one can easily start to see a message relevant to the here and now, and not the here after.

I cannot see how this interpretation of your point is inescapable. This is the case:

1. Luke 19:15 clearly places the action following it after the king's return.
2. Verse 27 is then to be interpreted to occur after the king's return.
3. You claim verse 27 is unconscionable
4. Therefore, what you claim is unconscionable is final judgment.
​

The only way out of this is to assert that the king in question is not Christ. But why would this be concluded? There are only a few reasons that I can see:

1) Verse 27 is not the actions of Christ, so we cannot say the king is Christ/God
--But this response, unless you deny premise 1 above, assumes that you disagree with final judgment, which you say you do not.

2) The punishment meted out is finite, so this parable is not eschatological
-- But this response is based on a wretched misunderstanding of basic English, as I have just pointed out. Metaphors are true in some senses and false in others; any basic English student knows this.

3) This parable is part of a larger intent to provide a cautionary tale against the god of human esteem
--This response runs perilously close to begging the question, especially to anyone who has read the Matthew 25 version of the same parable. Also, it overlooks the obvious difficulty I pointed out in interpreting the parable this way: If the king is the god of human esteem, he wins!

4) This parable never refers to the king as the Son of Man or some similar title
--In fact, which parable does? Matthew 25 doesn't. The ten virgins one doesn't. The parable of the sower doesn't. The parable of the shepherd and the lost sheep doesn't. The parable of the prodigal son doesn't. The parable of the vineyard owner doesn't. This is a very poor reason to suppose that the king in question is not Christ/God; in fact, king is a part of His nature, just as sower, shepherd, bridegroom, and owner are.
​

Can you please answer me clearly and directly: Why do you think the king in the parable is not Christ/God, and if your response is anything like 1-4 above, how do you answer the objections I raise?

This is not true. The way in which individuals interpet the passage is fine, but it's in close examantion of the passage, that one sees a strong, abruption in the gospel narrative. Now, i would like to note that there is no reason what-so-ever to assume the lord in the parable is Christ. Because the passage, unlike other passages does not claim the Lord to be the Son of Man, nor does the passage claim to condemn individuals to eternal punishment. In the version given by your interpretation and the common interpretitation, the entire chapter, is deemed as incohesive, because different parts seem to not to relate to other parts of the parable. Luke 19, is presented as continuious passage, with transitions, between the various parts.

See 1-4 above to refute your explanations of why the lord in the parable is not Christ/God.

In fact, there are several reasons to suppose that the king in the parable is Christ/God:

1. It is directly parallel in structure and much of the content to Matthew 25, which is clearly referring to God.

2. Jesus rarely (if ever) told cautionary parables which were intended to incite disgust in His listeners; whenever He did, He immediately explained what He meant to avoid confusion.

3. Verse 11 sets the stage by explaining that Jesus told this parable about what the kingdom of God would be like. "The kingdom of God is like a king-- who was not God and was evil--".... what?

4. The most obvious meaning of verse 27, because of verses 11 and 15, is that God will punish the unbelievers after Christ's return.

5. The interpretation of the parable which makes God the king creates no contradiction with any other teaching. Also, Luke 19 is still one complete narrative: Jesus encounters Zacchaeus, tells a parable which subverts the Pharisees by pointing out how those who reject Him or don't use what they are given are punished, and then He enters Jerusalem-- thereby beginning the process of ushering in the kingdom of God He talked about so much.
​

I think, it's not fair to deem the citizens of the kingdom, as rebels. Particulary because the citizens objected to the King rulership, prior to him inheriting the kingdom, and they did so in a quite civil way, by sending a delegation to some Ruler, to say that they did not want this particular figure to be king. Nothing in the passage, leads us to assume that they rebeled against their new rulership. If we take the parable out of the outwordly sense you place it, one can agree, that the citizens behavior, was quite commendable.

It all depends on the interpretation of who the king is. If the king is God, any rejection is unjust and deserves judgment. You also forget, it says in 14: "But his subjects hated him..." All their 'commendable' behavior was executed out of hate for the king. Since the king had every right to the throne, and was perfectly good, what right had they to hate him?

Of course, if the king is some worldly tyrant, both their rejection and their hatred is justified. But this interpretation is seriously lacking, for the reasons I have stated above.

In any case, you have not answered my question: If we assume you are correct and the king in the parable is the god of human esteem, then why does he win? And who are the other players in the parable? Who do they represent?

Let's ask a question, would you say that the Pharisees worhiped a god that is quite different than the one we worship? Well, let's not say they are two different gods, but can we say that their version of God, stands in contrast to our version of God? One can easily assume the pharisees believed they were living righteously, and that they believed god approved of their conduct, do you agree?

Now what would be the characteristics of this God, that they believed was pleased with their behavior? Would you say the god they worshiped, is the god of there human esteem, and not the true god? Since the true god, opposed their behavior?

( I apologize, but I am in a bit of a hurry, so I could not confront all the questions raised by your previous post)

I would agree that their idea of God would have been more concerned with outward shows of appearances and piety-- sacrifice and not mercy. If you like, I believe that in some sense, they did in fact worship the god of human esteem rather than the real God. What I don't get in your interpretation is the following:

1. Why "human esteem"? Where in the parable does human esteem even enter in? If Jesus is trying to flatten the Pharisees by attacking their idea of God, then why did He tell a parable where there is not the slightest element of what they thought God approved of?

2. What actions do we see the king in the parable performing (under your interpretation)? He is a tyrant who slaughters conscientious citizens merely for disagreeing with him. He is also a hard man who steals and who is unjust. First of all, how is this even remotely "the god of human esteem"? I don't know anyone who esteems persons who act this way. The king couldn't care twopence for the opinion of others, as his treatment of the citizens suggests. Second, why does he win?
​

There is no reason to believe that the parable in Luke 19 is anything other than a description of what will happen when the kingdom of God comes, apart from a strawman version of Christianity, poor grasp of rhetorical devices, and gross straining of the passage.

 

[intricatic]

As far as Matthew 25 is concerned, even the first time I approached scripture it clearly represented a fairly simple point; I didn't need to convolute it with historic interpretations or ask anyone to clarify it to me, although later on when I did happen to research some of the historic interpretations, what had originally occurred to me was basically what I read there, although most historic interpretations elaborate it to various degrees by providing a context for it under which it makes even more sense than a cursory reading does.

The same can be said about Luke 19, although with this one I may not have fully understood how it relates to the rest of scripture the first time I approached it, but I didn't think that the master in the parable was anything other than God. Zechariah 9 has the same duality within it of peace/war, mercy/justice, etc... that Luke 19 has, so it only naturally translates the same way that a cursory reading when I first approached this chapter would read as, though it has more depth given the context.

 

[hithesh]

To clear up one confusion we've been having so far: I actually don't believe the lord in the parable is Christ either. I believe it is God the Father. However, their actions will never be in contradiction.

I would like to ask just a few simple questions, now we would both agree that it is okay for our Lord, to slay unbelievers, but it's not okay for believers to do the same? correct.

Now, let's just say you are correct, and the Lord in the parable is Christ/or God the Father, which should not make much of difference since he and his father are one.

Would you say that any behavior, modeled by this Lord, should be imitated in our treatment towards others? Or should all areas of his behavior here, be opposed by us to imitate.

Now, just for a minute, assume that I am correct, and this Lord is not Christ/God the Father, but more of an earthly Lord. If we turn to matthew 25, would you say that the Son of Man, at the end of matthew 25, would tell this earthy Lord, " I do not know you, for whatever you did not do for the least you did not do for me"?

 

[ChristianCenturion]

(Luke 19:27) Now as for those enemies of mine who did not want me as their king, bring them here and slay them before me.'"

He's not saying he's going to slay his enemies, he's telling his servants to kill those who do not want him to be king?

Is our lord requiring us to start an inquisition to please him?

It is a parable that references an authority.
We would not be the Authority and Revelation would indicate what the parable was referring - Judgment Day.

Perhaps the beginning of the parable would be helpful in showing the "why" the parable was given:

Luke 19:11
While they were listening to this, he went on to tell them a parable, because he was near Jerusalem and the people thought that the kingdom of God was going to appear at once.

 

[intricatic]

I would like to ask just a few simple questions, now we would both agree that it is okay for our Lord, to slay unbelievers, but it's not okay for believers to do the same? correct.

Now, let's just say you are correct, and the Lord in the parable is Christ/or God the Father, which should not make much of difference since he and his father are one.

Would you say that any behavior, modeled by this Lord, should be imitated in our treatment towards others? Or should all areas of his behavior here, be opposed by us to imitate.

This had been floating around the back of my mind for a few days now, but I think I've finally come to see what it is.

Mark 4
26 And He said, “The kingdom of God is as if a man should scatter seed on the ground, 27 and should sleep by night and rise by day, and the seed should sprout and grow, he himself does not know how. 28 For the earth yields crops by itself: first the blade, then the head, after that the full grain in the head. 29 But when the grain ripens, immediately he puts in the sickle, because the harvest has come.”

Notice the idea that the sower has scattered his seeds and then gone to sleep; he didn't stand by and watch the seeds to ensure they sprouted, or to make them sprout somehow, they did so because they fell on good ground and nature provided the seeds what they required to grow.

Luke 19
20 “Then another came, saying, ‘Master, here is your mina, which I have kept put away in a handkerchief. 21 For I feared you, because you are an austere man. You collect what you did not deposit, and reap what you did not sow.’ 22 And he said to him, ‘Out of your own mouth I will judge you, you wicked servant. You knew that I was an austere man, collecting what I did not deposit and reaping what I did not sow. 23 Why then did you not put my money in the bank, that at my coming I might have collected it with interest?’

But yet, did the master not sow by giving something for each of the servants to invest? Don't misunderstand me here, I believe the two parables are speaking to two different ideas which are related, not the same individual mode of behaviour or idea, but the similarities and the way they contrast seem to speak to one another extremely clearly.

Likewise to the first parable in Mark 4 (and also in the other gospels).

Mark 4
1 And again He began to teach by the sea. And a great multitude was gathered to Him, so that He got into a boat and sat in it on the sea; and the whole multitude was on the land facing the sea. 2 Then He taught them many things by parables, and said to them in His teaching:
3 “Listen! Behold, a sower went out to sow. 4 And it happened, as he sowed, that some seed fell by the wayside; and the birds of the air[a] came and devoured it. 5 Some fell on stony ground, where it did not have much earth; and immediately it sprang up because it had no depth of earth. 6 But when the sun was up it was scorched, and because it had no root it withered away. 7 And some seed fell among thorns; and the thorns grew up and choked it, and it yielded no crop. 8 But other seed fell on good ground and yielded a crop that sprang up, increased and produced: some thirtyfold, some sixty, and some a hundred.”

To the specific idea being described in the sower parables, the moment of salvation is being explained; some hear the word (James 1 & 2) but their faith dies in times of trial (etc..), while some grow and bring exponential blessings to the sower.

John 12
23 But Jesus answered them, saying, “The hour has come that the Son of Man should be glorified. 24 Most assuredly, I say to you, unless a grain of wheat falls into the ground and dies, it remains alone; but if it dies, it produces much grain. 25 He who loves his life will lose it, and he who hates his life in this world will keep it for eternal life. 26 If anyone serves Me, let him follow Me; and where I am, there My servant will be also. If anyone serves Me, him My Father will honor.

The link between the two ideas is that one describes the moment of salvation, the act of recieving the word, while the other describes the use that it's put to. But as regards the unbelievers, the same can be seen in the collected parables of the sower;

Matthew 13
24 Another parable He put forth to them, saying: “The kingdom of heaven is like a man who sowed good seed in his field; 25 but while men slept, his enemy came and sowed tares among the wheat and went his way. 26 But when the grain had sprouted and produced a crop, then the tares also appeared. 27 So the servants of the owner came and said to him, ‘Sir, did you not sow good seed in your field? How then does it have tares?’ 28 He said to them, ‘An enemy has done this.’ The servants said to him, ‘Do you want us then to go and gather them up?’ 29 But he said, ‘No, lest while you gather up the tares you also uproot the wheat with them. 30 Let both grow together until the harvest, and at the time of harvest I will say to the reapers, “First gather together the tares and bind them in bundles to burn them, but gather the wheat into my barn.”’”

The 'unbelievers' in Luke 19 are those who openly and knowingly reject Christ. Those who simply don't know Christ may fall into one category or the other, but that's beyond our ability to discern. If Luke 19 is calling us, before Christ's return or after, to kill unbelievers, what do the sower parables mean?

 

[TrueMyth]

I would like to ask just a few simple questions, now we would both agree that it is okay for our Lord, to slay unbelievers, but it's not okay for believers to do the same? correct.

Now, let's just say you are correct, and the Lord in the parable is Christ/or God the Father, which should not make much of difference since he and his father are one.

Would you say that any behavior, modeled by this Lord, should be imitated in our treatment towards others? Or should all areas of his behavior here, be opposed by us to imitate.

Now, just for a minute, assume that I am correct, and this Lord is not Christ/God the Father, but more of an earthly Lord. If we turn to matthew 25, would you say that the Son of Man, at the end of matthew 25, would tell this earthy Lord, " I do not know you, for whatever you did not do for the least you did not do for me"?

I will answer and address this, but I would first like for you to comment on two very important questions which have remained unanswered long enough. Normally, I would not play the 4 year-old game of "I asked you first!", but in this case when the question goes unanswered it changes the whole tenor of the discussion. Without your answers to these questions, I have had trouble understanding your position and the topic has shifted far too many times. In any case, I'm getting too verbose, and it will be beneficial to limit the scope of the discussion one step at a time. Therefore:

1. If the king if the parable is the god of human esteem, what is the parable intended to prove, since the king wins?

2. What is your response to verse 15? It seems to clearly place the action after it (including verse 27) following the king's return. That will have no effect on your interpretation, but under the traditional one your complaint was that verse 27 was unconscionable. You also claim that you don't have a problem with final judgment. How can you reconcile this?

 

[hithesh]

.