Luke 19:27

[thinkfreelivefree]

NASB: "But these enemies of mine, who did not want me to reign over them, bring them here and slay them in my presence." (NASB ©1995)

GWT: Bring my enemies, who didn't want me to be their king. Kill them in front of me.'"[SIZE=-2](GOD'S WORD®)

[/SIZE]KJV: But those mine enemies, which would not that I should reign over them, bring hither, and slay them before me.

was this meant to be taken literally? Of course it seems it has been throughout history.

 

[GreenMunchkin]

Read from 19:11 and it becomes obvious it's not Jesus saying it.

Still looking, by the way. For the mass conversion. Gonna have to ask my mum

 

[BigNorsk]

You can't just take one line from an entire story. Notice why the story is told.

Luk 19:11 NET.
(11) While the people were listening to these things, Jesus proceeded to tell a parable, because he was near to Jerusalem, and because they thought that the kingdom of God was going to appear immediately.

The reason they were told the story is because they thought the time of the kingdome was right then and there.

Notice in the story, the king gives to the servants and leaves. There are people who complain they do not want this king.

Later, the king returns, the servants are rewarded according to what they have done. Those people who rejected the king are brought and slain.

It is speaking not of right then or even now. At this time the king has not returned, but when Jesus returns then truly those people who have rejected him and wanted other kings, they will be dragged before him and they will experience the second death in the lake of fire.

It is not Jesus telling his followers to go out and kill people. Effectively people kill themselves with their rejection of the king for which they will pay with their lives. But not know, at the time of judgement.

Marv

 

[Jerrell]

Luke Chapter 19, is a Parable. Verses 27 is part of verses 12-17 where Jesus is telling the story of a King. It was the King for whom Jesus was speaking in Verse 27, not he himself.

 

[thinkfreelivefree]

He only refers to the 3 servants throughout the parable and mentions enemies at the very end which seems kind of odd.

So the king isn't a reference to himself or God I take it, and it wasn't meant to be taken literally. I think the Crusaders and the Inquisition period messed up pretty badly.

 

[HypnoToad]

So the king isn't a reference to himself or God I take it, and it wasn't meant to be taken literally.

Not literal, but I would say it is a reference to God. But, that reference isn't saying that Christians are to go out and kill non-Christians. It's a reference to the final judgement where those who rejected God will be damned.

I think the Crusaders and the Inquisition period messed up pretty badly.

Most Christians probably agree that those actions were an abuse of Christian teaching.

 

[cyberlizard]

when it comes to the parables of Jesus, I would recommend every buy, beg or borrow:

the parables: jewish tradition and christian interpretation by brad young

the book simply strips away the 2000 years of rubbish teaching that has accumulated on top of them and takes the reader back to how they would have been understood by the people who heard them when jesus said them.

jesus' teaching cannot be divorced from the social and historical context in which he lived. To do so is not exegesis of the scripture it is stupidity.

Steve

 

[Digit]

As the others have said, it is a parable and He was talking of another. In the begining it is said that the ruler is a hard man (v21), and this certainly backs it up.

Cheers,
Digit

 

[tulc]

A quick rule of thumb for stuying the Bible is: "text without context is pretext" Been here? http://www.fallacyfiles.org/quotcont.html
tulc(tries to follow this rule)

 

[Key]

He only refers to the 3 servants throughout the parable and mentions enemies at the very end which seems kind of odd.

So the king isn't a reference to himself or God I take it, and it wasn't meant to be taken literally. I think the Crusaders and the Inquisition period messed up pretty badly.

It is a parable, AKA: analogy. Not to be taken Word for Word, or as some call it "Literal" but to only express a meaning, or lesson, in a way the common people might grasp it.

God Bless

Key

 

[ebia]

NASB: "But these enemies of mine, who did not want me to reign over them, bring them here and slay them in my presence." (NASB ©1995)

GWT: Bring my enemies, who didn't want me to be their king. Kill them in front of me.'"[SIZE=-2](GOD'S WORD®)[/SIZE]

KJV: But those mine enemies, which would not that I should reign over them, bring hither, and slay them before me.

was this meant to be taken literally? Of course it seems it has been throughout history.

The whole story is one that has often been misunderstood.

To Jesus original audience a story like this is quite obviously about God (the King) and Israel (the sevant). Indirectly it has things to say about Jesus 2nd coming, but directly it is talking about YHWH's return - which has happened in Jesus of Nazareth - and Israel has been found to have buried it's money and not invested. That judgement did happen - in AD70.

If one pulls the final judgement quote out of the context of the story and the wider gospel themes, and treats it as a command on it's own, then yes - one can use it to justifiy all sorts of atrocities, but only if one completely ignores the bigger picture of Jesus message, one aspect of which is precisely that one cannot bring about God's kingdom by force. That's precisely what many in Israel had been getting wrong, it's precisely what several of his stories address, and it's precisely the attitude that brought the judgement of AD70 down on their heads when Rome finally lost patience with the constant revolts and flattened the place.

If we take this as a command kill unbelievers we haven't been listening at all.