Did Jesus promote Murder (Luke 19:27)

[Guest]

Luke 19:27 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.'"

This passage is one that skeptics appeal to in attempt to show that Christ promoted murder on those who did not recieve Him as Messiah. What could be said in response to this?

[Guest]

I would say that in this parable, Jesus was illustrating what would happen after His second return, at the judgement:

v.12 ...A certain nobleman went into a far country to receive for himself a kingdom, and to return.
v.15... And it came to pass, that when he was returned, having received the kingdom,...

To me it seems obvious that it will be God who will at that time judge those who refused Him, & certainly not a directive to the church for this present age. In any case there would be other scriptures forbidding this view, like...."Thou shalt not kill".
This is just off the cuff, & probably what I would reply if put on the spot.
Hopefully others will have a more erudite answer.

[Guest]

I don't think a more erudite answer is needed. I think Suzana's explanation is one that most (including myself) would see in the parable. The only other explanation that someone might see in it would be the judgment on the Jews in AD 70, but I don't think that fits the chronology of the parable that well, since the judgment on the rebels is placed after the rewarding of the faithful servants, which sounds like the second coming to me.

In either case, the church is not the instrument of execution of the rebels. If it is AD 70, it was the war with the Romans that was the agency, and if it is the second coming, it is, no doubt, the angels (haven't you seen those Jack Chick tracts?). Thus Jesus is not instructing His people to kill anybody.

[Guest]

See, more erudite.
Just what I meant....thanks, Steve.

[Guest]

Hopefully others will have a more erudite answer.

Rather than add to the conversation, I needed to start at the basics. Find out what erudite meant!

[Guest]

I have been doing some thinking on this parable and the one like it in Matthew where talents of money are given as the works in the kingdom. I have to admit that it bothers me to some extent that if this is about what we are to do while the King is away and yet fall short in some way even to the extreme of doing nothing within the kingdom, does the parable mean that those who profess faith in Christ but don't do anything as kingdom work will be lost on the day of judgement? Another place says we are each given a certain measure of faith, and by these parables we should know that we are to work with what we are given, but if it is faith we are given in the first place, is that faith a saving faith? If it is then besides wanting to do for Christ all we can while on earth, are we required to do those things in order to maintain that faith, in other words, to keep it as a saving faith.

We see in First Corinthians that all of our works that a not kingdom works will be burnt up but still we are saved as through fire. Do my above questions negate that of 1st Corinthians?

[Guest]

I have to admit that it bothers me to some extent that if this is about what we are to do while the King is away and yet fall short in some way even to the extreme of doing nothing within the kingdom, does the parable mean that those who profess faith in Christ but don't do anything as kingdom work will be lost on the day of judgement?

In Christ's parable, the third servant who did "nothing" with the single unit of money given to him, had that money taken away from him. But he is not one of those whom the king instructs his servants to kill. The ones whom he instructs his servants to kill are the citizens who hated the king and said, "We don't want this man to rule over us."

[Guest]

I've debated with atheists who, by grossly misconstruing this parable, claim that Jesus advocated killing non-believers!

There is a completely different, and very thought provoking, take on this parable from N.T. Wright, who suggests that Jesus is actually describing His present approach to Jerusalem as the return of the king. Here are some selected quotes from Wright's "Jesus and the Victory of God" (pages 631-639).

This, it is normally and rightly assumed, is a clear reference to the story of Archelaus, son of Herod the Great, who went to Rome in 4BC to petition Augustus for the kingdom of his father, was followed by a deputation of Jews protesting against him, and was given half the kingdom, with the status of ethnarch. The story thus had, in Luke's retelling, particular local and cutural resonances.

In both Matthew and Luke, then, the coming of the master/king in judgment on the faithless servant is best read as referring to YHWH's return to Zion, and to the devastating results that this will produce. When expectation of the coming kingdom is aroused, it is for this that people are longing: that YHWH will come and deliver his people from their enemies, and rule over them, as their rightful king. Jesus' parable is, as it were, an expansion of Malachi 3:1-3: the Lord who you seek shall suddenly come to his Temple - but who can stand before him at his appearing? Israel's asperations will not be underwritten as they stand. Her hope for national victory over national enemies will remain unfulfilled. Instead,

"He is like a refiner's fire ...; he will sit as a refiner and purifier of silver ... Then I will draw near to you for judgment; I will be swift to bear witness against [those who ...] do not fear me, says YHWH of hosts."

Israel's God is at last returning to His people, to His Temple, But the hope set forth in Isaiah 40-55 must be tempered with the warning of Malachi 3. That is the force of the parable in Matthew and Luke.

What then can we say about the parable in its original telling(s) by Jesus himself?

First, it was a warning that, when YHWH returned to Zion, he would come as a judge for those in Israel who had not been faithful to his commission. When YHWH returned, as Israel hoped and longed for him to do, he would come as much to judge as to save, and the judgment would begin with his own household. "Why do you desire the day of YHWH? It is a day of darkness, not of light." [Amos 5:18] Israel's hopes of national victory would be set aside; the only people vindicated when their god returned, to act in fulfilment of his promise, would be those who responded to the divine summons now being issued in Jesus' kingdom-announcement.

Second, it was the further warning that this coming of YHWH to Zion was indeed imminent. Ironically, the parable which as most regularly been appealed to as referring to a delay in the coming of the kingdom was originally meant as a warning of imminence. It all depends on where, within the story, the hearer is supposed to be located. It has usually been assumed, quite gratuitously, that the story is told from the perspective of the beginning of the process, when the master is going away. But it is far more likely, in view of the emphasis of the parable, that the "ideal hearer" is located near the end of the story, when the master is about to return. This fits with the emphasis of Jesus' entire public career: the moment that counts is even now upon us. YHWH is now at last visiting his people. This "visitation", a major theme of Jesus' public career in both story and praxis, enables us to locate the parable historically with a fair degree of certainty...

How, then, did the parable actually work, as a rhetorical event, with the career of Jesus, and particularly in its setting of Jesus' coming to Jerusalem and all that he there accomplished? To answer this, we may compare the way in which several other parables explained Jesus' actions. The story of the doctor going to the sick, not the healthy, explained why Jesus was associating with tax-collectors. The stories of the sheep, coin and sons explained why he was welcoming sinners. The "wicked tenants" explained why Jesus did what he did in the Temple. And so on. I propose that this parable should be seen as a key expanatory riddle for Jesus' own action. He saw his journey to Jerusalem as the symbol and embodiment of YHWH's return to Zion. It was a new ending, in an acted narrative, of the widespread and well-known biblical prophecies we set out earlier. The action was prophetic; it was messianic; and it was something more, consonant with both of those but going beyond, into an area where there is no obviously suitable adjective. Jesus was hinting, for those with ears to hear, that as he was riding over the Mount of Olives, celebrating the coming kingdom, and warning Jerusalem that it would mean judgment for those who rejected him and his way of peace, so YHWH was returning to his people, his city and his Temple. But who would abide the day of his coming?

Just some food for thought...

[Guest]

I have another question.
In the talents parable in Matt 25, the master had the unprofitable servant thrown into outer darkness. He also told him that he should have placed his talent in the bank to at least gain some interest.
I’ve been wondering the meaning of ‘putting the money in the bank’, and how that would apply practically. To me it reads like there is a difference to trading with it to gain another talent, and merely putting it in the bank.

[Guest]

I think it's that putting the money in the bank requires almost no effort, but it is at least something. The unprofitable servant didn't even attempt the bare minimum.

The "profit" that the master seems to be looking for is tangible expressions of mercy, compassion and love (as evidenced by the criteria of separaton in the parable of the sheep and the goats).

BTW, I think the "outer darkness" is a reference back to Leviticus where the consequence of various forms of uncleanness was to be sent outside of the camp (and thus excluded from the community of God's people). The theme is that one can appear "pure" on the outside but be "unclean" on the inside (ala the Pharisees).

Maybe the equivalent of "putting the money in the bank" today would be something like sponsoring a child through World Vision or Compassion Int'l. It hardly requires any effort or sacrifice yet is a practical way of propigating the love of God.