Jesus said not peace but sword?

[~Anastasia~]

What is the particular, moral lesson of Luke 19:27?

The lesson is not focused within that particular verse but within the entire parable. The main point is not to bury what God has given us but to use it to help others, specifically to help them draw near to Him.

This is a further illustration that parables are not just translated into direct meanings - God is not going to demand a monetary increase from us. He isn't going to ask us to give what He gave us back to Him. It's the underlying principle, not the details of the story used to illustrate it.

 

[ananda]

The lesson is not focused within that particular verse but within the entire parable. The main point is not to bury what God has given us but to use it to help others, specifically to help them draw near to Him.

This is a further illustration that parables are not just translated into direct meanings - God is not going to demand a monetary increase from us. He isn't going to ask us to give what He gave us back to Him. It's the underlying principle, not the details of the story used to illustrate it.

What is the secondary point of that particular verse, then?

If he was omniscient and/or god, is it not reasonable to believe that he had a very good reason for every word he says, and that nothing was said for no reason at all?

 

[~Anastasia~]

What is the secondary point of that particular verse, then?

If he was omniscient and/or god, is it not reasonable to believe that he had a very good reason for every word he says, and that nothing was said for no reason at all?

There is a secondary lesson, and I've explained it twice already in this thread I think?

Sorry but it's rather long and I can't keep retyping it.

(I'll insert quotes)

 

[~Anastasia~]

And the second is part of a parable. The real message of the parable is that we should be using what God has given us, that our lives should be spent in some kind of service to the Gospel and not merely burying what He has given us so that it benefits no one. But the king in the parable does not accept those who reject Him

This part has implications for eternity. It is not even that God will punish/destroy in vengeance those that reject Him. But by rejecting Him, they enter His Presence unchanged and full of sin. Nothing in such a state can live before Him ... yet they will be in bodies that cannot die so it is going to be torment for them at that point

Jesus was telling a story.

In the story, a king was given a kingdom and some people said, "we won't have this king" and rejected him. In the end, the king in the story is the one who is saying to bring the rebels and kill them.

First we have to know that the stories are told in such things as the people will understand. I think it was common for kings to put to death those that rejected the king when he came into a new country. So it was setting some context for them.

What it means for us ...

God is the source of life. He wants to give that life to men. But we must accept it. He won't force anyone to accept Him. But if we reject Him, we reject life.

It has been explained that a man who decides to shut himself into a metal box cuts himself off from sunlight in the same way. The sun isn't trying to punish him. He himself cuts himself off. In the same way, God is the only source of real life.

However ... all will be resurrected into their bodies. God has said this. Death will be no more. These bodies can't die.

But when Moses asked to see God - even Moses who was a friend of God - God told him that He couldn't show Himsrlf to Moses because it would kill Moses. Not that God wanted to kill him or would do it in anger. But Moses, in his less than perfect state - would die if he was put in the presence of God.

At the judgement, all of those undying bodies will come before God. And God is also everywhere, so they can't escape. But because they reject Christ, they are not freed from their sins. So they are in far worse shape than Moses, yet unable to die. So ... they will suffer because of what they are. The Scripture also says "our God is a consuming fire". Not because He desires to burn people up, but because His sheer holiness will have that effect on sin, the way a bright light consumes darkness.

But they won't be able to die or truly escape. So ... ongoing torment.

That's not what the simple story explains. But it is a parable, only meant to illustrate a truth that is hidden within it.

Maybe more ...

 

[ananda]

Maybe more ...

I agree: "In the end, the king in the story is the one who is saying to bring the rebels and kill them." Thanks for sharing.

 

[~Anastasia~]

I agree: "In the end, the king in the story is the one who is saying to bring the rebels and kill them." Thanks for sharing.

Also in the end, the king is demanding interest on money placed.

Things are not meant to be exactly equivalent. Nor understood in a vacuum without the total context of theology.

But if one is looking to prove a pre-selected idea, it can usually be done by lifting a verse here or one there.

Peace to you.

 

[ananda]

Also in the end, the king is demanding interest on money placed.

Things are not meant to be exactly equivalent. Nor understood in a vacuum without the total context of theology.

But if one is looking to prove a pre-selected idea, it can usually be done by lifting a verse here or one there.

Peace to you.

Do you believe that the king imposes an infinite penalty (e.g. "ongoing torment", aka eternity in a lake of fire) for a finite transgression ... and if so, is that loving?

 

[Nihilist Virus]

"Do not suppose that I(Jesus) have come to bring peace to the earth. I did not come to bring peace, but a sword.
Matthew 10:34

Jesus also said
But those enemies of mine who did not want me to be king over them--bring them here and kill them in front of me.'
Luke 19:27

How is it its said Jesus is love but the above says otherwise?

You are not taken seriously. You have told me that a 50-year-old man having sex with a nine-year-old is not child molestation.

Remove the plank from your own eye so you can see clearly to remove the speck from your brother's eye.

 

[~Anastasia~]

Do you believe that the king imposes an infinite penalty (e.g. "ongoing torment", aka eternity in a lake of fire) for a finite transgression ... and if so, is that loving?

No I don't believe that God imposes a penalty. It's not primarily about legalism - transgression and punishment.

I believe that God offers healing, and those that refuse it are going to suffer the effects of their sin sickness because God won't force anyone.

Yes, God is loving. And good. He absolutely desires all persons to be healed and saved. But He respects the dignity that every human person is inherently endowed with by virtue of being created in His image.

Will it be eternal? Honestly, there are things we don't know. Might people eventually repent due to their suffering? Or will that even be ontologically possible? We honestly don't know the answer to this. I know Protestants believe in finality at death (and they may be right) but Scripture talks about one sin which cannot be forgiven "either in this life or the next" --- which if there was no possibility of ANY healing from sin, is an odd thing to say? Some things God has simply not told us. But that thing that can't be forgiven - is absolute refusal to accept forgiveness (blasphemy of the Holy Spirit - rejecting the grace of God). Maybe they are so set they are unable to ever change in which case, yes they can expect to forever suffer their state. We simply don't know this, not really. Though some denominations have read theology/beliefs into it.

But the whole "a loving and just God wouldn't order infinite eternal punishment for a finite transgression" is nothing but a strawman. The ancient Church never taught this to be the way God is.

Our hell, whatever it may be, will be of our own making. Not the result of God's desire to punish.

 

[com7fy8]

"Do not suppose that I(Jesus) have come to bring peace to the earth. I did not come to bring peace, but a sword.
Matthew 10:34

Jesus also said
But those enemies of mine who did not want me to be king over them--bring them here and kill them in front of me.'
Luke 19:27

How is it its said Jesus is love but the above says otherwise?

Jesus is love.

But in His love, Jesus will make sure that evil will be put away from us who love. And there are people who are carrying evil in them; so they will go where their evil is going. And they are so stubborn, that the sword and fire will be needed to make them cooperate.

Therefore, we who love now care for these people, and so we pray for them to be changed by God. We have hope for them. Jesus is talking about later . . . not now. So, it is wise to feed on how Jesus is now loving such evil people and offering them opportunity now to change from their stubbornness and become adopted as children of God.

So, it is misleading to evaluate Jesus only by what will happen, later, if you desire to be honest with your own self! Please consider how now Jesus is calling to "all" >

"'Come to Me, all you who labor and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest. Take My yoke upon you and learn from Me, for I am gentle and lowly in heart, and you will find rest for your souls.'" (Matthew 11:28-29)

Right now, then, people can have the peace of obeying Jesus in His love's "rest for your souls." But those who refuse this will have to go somewhere else . . . since they do not want this. They are getting their choice.

But with our Father in Heaven, we can share with Him in His own peace . . . His own perfect harmony of His almighty power of His love. So, peace is so better than how humans can define peace.

 

[ananda]

No I don't believe that God imposes a penalty... I believe that God offers healing, and those that refuse it are going to suffer the effects of their sin sickness because God won't force anyone...

IMO that does not explain why Jesus allegedly said "But those mine enemies, which would not that I should reign over them, bring hither, and slay them before me" instead of something like: "But those mine enemies, which would not that I should heal them, leave them to their own will to suffer what they have brought upon themselves".

 

[RDKirk]

IMO that does not explain why Jesus allegedly said "But those mine enemies, which would not that I should reign over them, bring hither, and slay them before me" instead of something like: "But those mine enemies, which would not that I should heal them, leave them to their own will to suffer what they have brought upon themselves".

There is, as I told you before, the point that ultimately there will be an accounting taken of everyone by the master of their stewardship. That is a point that is repeated by Jesus in numerous parables.

You want everyone to be accountable only to themselves--which would make them their own god.

But inasumch as nobody created himself, nobody is accountable only to himself.

 

[com7fy8]

why Jesus allegedly said "But those mine enemies, which would not that I should reign over them, bring hither, and slay them before me"

We have Hebrews 2:14-15 >

"Inasmuch then as the children have partaken of flesh and blood, He likewise shared in the same, that through death He might destroy him who had the power of death, that is, the devil, and release them who through fear of death were all their lifetime subject to bondage." (Hebrews 2:14-15)

So, I see here how Jesus is all about love. Jesus so superior even has shared "in flesh and blood" with us. And Jesus is so unconceited that Jesus God's own Son suffered and died like He did, on the cross of Calvary, so He could save us and share God's very own good with us.

By the way > Jesus knows about hell; part of why Jesus suffered like that is He knows how hell is, and so He considered it worthwhile to suffer that much in order to make sure we don't go there.

And the fact that Satan had people doing all that cruelly hateful stuff to Jesus is evidence of how horrible Satan and his evil spirit is, and how humans acting in Satan's spirit can do things. There is "the spirit who now works in the sons of disobedience" (in Ephesians 2:2). And there are people who have been living in this spirit > such Satanic people crucified Jesus. Even Jewish mommies and daddies called for the crucifixion of Jesus, crying out, "His blood be on us and on our children" (in Matthew 27:25); so Satan's evil and filthing spirit made even Jewish mothers and fathers so able to betray and curse even their own children and to so reject their own Messiah. And Satan's spirit in any of us could have brought any of us to do the same thing > our Apostle Paul, a Jew, is clear how "we all" have been "children of wrath, just as the others." (in Ephesians 2:3)

So, Jesus has come to save us from Satan and sin and the horrible spirit of sin. This spirit of selfishness has to go somewhere, and there are vessels for carrying it there. Romans 9:21 is clear how God has vessels for honor but also for dishonor. Satan's spirit is the spirit of "fear of death" (Hebrews 2:14-15), "the spirit of bondage" (Romans 8:15) to fearing death, also the spirit of being love-dead > Satan shares love-dead things with his people > "bitterness, wrath, anger, clamor, and evil speaking" and "malice" > see Ephesians 4:31.

So, I think it can be very clear why Jesus went through Calvary in order to destroy the devil. And God's love has not been enough to satisfy Satan and his people to become loving. So, fire will be needed to control such stubborn beings. And Jesus has done what we need. Humans with their weapons and Bible arguing and politics can not do all which Jesus has done and is doing, to move Satan and his spirit and human vessels of this filth to the flaming sewer which burns with fire and brimstone. In the news we are seeing how much humans have proven themselves able to do to stop Satan and his evil spirit in people. But evil and vessels containing it is all on its way to where God will keep it all!!

So, yes there is "the severity of God", our Apostle Paul does say in Romans 11:22. God is good and His mercy endures forever, but this includes how He is able to keep Satan and his evil spirit from messing us with unforgiveness and pride and dominating and dictatorial lusts for pleasure; and in God's peace through Jesus, there is almighty power to keep us from giving in to "fear of death" which makes people love-dead and easy to control with stubborn desires for money and pleasure and depending on the false security of military and materials, instead of depending on God.

@Godistruth1 > It is like how a mother grizzly bear can tenderly care for and warmly love her little cubs whom she keeps near her tummy, while at the same time she is smashing wolves who are trying to catch and kill and eat her baby cubs. She is so loving and can keep her cubs in peace, but she is severe against those wolves.

"For our God is a consuming fire." (Hebrews 12:29)

Fire now can burn Satan and his things away from us, while that same fire warms our hearts in His peace.

"Therefore submit to God. Resist the devil and he will flee from you." (James 4:7)

 

[~Anastasia~]

IMO that does not explain why Jesus allegedly said "But those mine enemies, which would not that I should reign over them, bring hither, and slay them before me" instead of something like: "But those mine enemies, which would not that I should heal them, leave them to their own will to suffer what they have brought upon themselves".

First off, Jesus was telling a story. He was not speaking his own words. He's not going to ask everyone for money invested with interest either, which was the main part of the story.

Stories illustrate points, but are not always precisely as the dialogue indicates.

This parable has a king saying "bring them and slay them before me". Another parable has the master of the feast saying "bind them up and throw them out". Another simply has a bridegroom refusing to open the door and saying, "I don't recognize you".

They can't all be literally true. They each illustrate the point relative to the situation. According to early Church commentaries, it was the norm at that time for a king who took over a land to have as subjects any who accepted his rule. Those who refused to have the king rule over them (specifically as the ones at the beginning of this parable did) were usually put to death in the sight of the king.

That verse illustrates a principle based on the example used (a king taking sovereignty over a land). That's why different examples with different specific outcomes were used in parables which featured a master of the feast or a bridegroom instead of a conquering king.

Parables are stories that use themes familiar to the people hearing them.

One can choose, if they want, to paint the entire character of God from a single line of dialogue within a single parable, but it is a matter of choosing to be blind to do so. But we have the personal revelation of Jesus Christ among us, and the Apostles having been inspired by the Holy Spirit, as well as those they instructed, also instructed by the Holy Spirit, into a cohesive and understandable whole. It is each person's choice to either accept that or to build rather upon their own foundation. God has given us that dignity of choice.

 

[ananda]

There is, as I told you before, the point that ultimately there will be an accounting taken of everyone by the master of their stewardship. That is a point that is repeated by Jesus in numerous parables.

You want everyone to be accountable only to themselves--which would make them their own god.

But inasumch as nobody created himself, nobody is accountable only to himself.

Well, my focus is on the idea that "slay them before me" (as the verse states) clearly does not equal "leave them to their own will to suffer what they have brought upon themselves" (which many, including in this thread, have reinterpreted the verse to mean in their own minds).

 

[ananda]

So, I see here how Jesus is all about love ... So, Jesus has come to save us from Satan and sin and the horrible spirit of sin.

Would it be an expression of love if a king states: "Accept my reign, or be slain"?

 

[ananda]

Parables are stories that use themes familiar to the people hearing them.

I find it reasonable to suggest that an omniscient deity would surely have known beforehand how future generations would interpret his words, and have planned accordingly, and would have made sure nothing could be misinterpreted.

 

[~Anastasia~]

Well, my focus is on the idea that "slay them before me" (as the verse states) clearly does not equal "leave them to their own will to suffer what they have brought upon themselves" (which many, including in this thread, have reinterpreted the verse to mean in their own minds).

I'm not reinterpreting those words.

I'm understanding that those words were indeed spoken in the context of the parable used. Other words with very different orders were used in different parables that discussed different situations - even though they all describe the same event.

The interpretation comes from a broad knowledge taken from of all of Scripture and understanding the nature of God's disposition toward us. Which can hardly be gained by narrowing one's focus to a single line of dialogue in a single parable.

If you want to understand, I'm willing to try to help as much as I'm able.

If you want to hold onto your point of view as a reason not to believe, then that's not my place to try to change.

I find it reasonable to suggest that an omniscient deity would surely have known beforehand how future generations would interpret his words, and have planned accordingly, and would have made sure nothing could be misinterpreted.

Frankly that is you putting your expectation on God. True, He could have explained everything in an encyclopedia, and I would have liked that too.

But you're looking only at your interpretation, of only one line of text, of only one story, that is an account of something Jesus told the crowds.

Two points about that.

First, the parables were told at that time SO THAT some might understand - those who it was given to. Christ often had to interpret His parables so His disciples would understand. The masses often didn't. Even though they understood the contexts I've tried to explain to you, which you don't have understanding of, since you are coming from a different time and place.

The other point - Jesus didn't publish a book. He founded a CHURCH ... that went on to write the book as part of their understanding, and interpreted it for people. You're relying only on a tiny portion of the book and rejecting the context and the interpretation - then blaming God because you don't reach the same understanding?

 

[ananda]

The other point - Jesus didn't publish a book. He founded a CHURCH ... that went on to write the book as part of their understanding, and interpreted it for people. You're relying only on a tiny portion of the book and rejecting the context and the interpretation - then blaming God because you don't reach the same understanding?

I would fault any alleged deity for not making their message indisputably clear, without need for context or interpretation.

 

[~Anastasia~]

I would fault any alleged deity for not making their message indisputably clear, without need for context or interpretation.

Then you make yourself the judge of the Creator of the universe.