Luke 19:27

[Lux]

Luke 19:27 (ESV)
But as for these enemies of mine, who did not want me to reign over them, bring them here and slaughter them before me.

I was flabbergasted when I read this verse … “slaughter them”?! … Would Jesus ever say such a thing??? ... So, searched a bit and found this site. Which commentary should I adopt? Or are there other interpretations?

http://biblehub.com/commentaries/luke/19-27.htm

 

[Namaste Jesus]

This a good example of the confusion that can result when Biblical verses are taken out of context. Luke 19:27 is but one part of a greater parable Jesus taught. It's not meant as an instruction to do harm, but rather drive home the importance of being mindful of God's judgment. This site explains it a little better than I and I'm sure Thomas can shed further light on the subject.

http://christianity.stackexchange.c...nd-kill-them-in-front-of-me-in-luke-1927-mean

 

[wil]

Meta. Enemies in secret (secret enemy, hatred in secret); error thoughts and fears of which we have not as yet really become conscious, but which are working with seemingly great strength(who strengthens the army) in our subconsciousness and out into our bodyconsciousness and our body."Who can discernhis errors ?Clear thou me from hidden faults."


Slaughter all those enemies!

 

[Lux]

This a good example of the confusion that can result when Biblical verses are taken out of context. Luke 19:27 is but one part of a greater parable Jesus taught. It's not meant as an instruction to do harm, but rather drive home the importance of being mindful of God's judgment. This site explains it a little better than I and I'm sure Thomas can shed further light on the subject.

http://christianity.stackexchange.c...nd-kill-them-in-front-of-me-in-luke-1927-mean

Actually that’s the site where I found the link (BibleHub) I posted.

Since you asked for an "orthodox" (small "o") understanding of this, I'm going to turn to several well-known Bible commentaries, all conveniently located here, associated with the verse in question, an BibleHub.com

 

[Lux]

Meta. Enemies in secret (secret enemy, hatred in secret); error thoughts and fears of which we have not as yet really become conscious, but which are working with seemingly great strength(who strengthens the army) in our subconsciousness and out into our bodyconsciousness and our body."Who can discernhis errors ?Clear thou me from hidden faults."

Slaughter all those enemies!

Thanks wil, Metaphysical interpretations are always intriguing ... Is this method unique to Unity churches only? or do any other Christian sects adopt it too?

 

[Ahanu]

Or are there other interpretations?

Some scholars believe it refers to the final judgement. Others believe it is a warning about government. I have to tread carefully here, because this could easily be interpreted to say all non-Christians that reject Christ will be executed in the final judgement. See John MacArthur's interpretation here. Those who reject Christ (Muslims, atheists, Buddhists, and so on) will "face Christ as their . . . executioner". I definitely reject MacArthur's interpretation. So, yeah, searching Youtube didn't reveal anything helpful.

I'm still searching. I found a lot more academic literature about this when I googled "The Parable of the Throne Claimant". This is how John Meier's A Marginal Jew titles the parable here. Maybe this will help you find more views, because the academic community seems to be using these words.

 

[Ahanu]

I was flabbergasted when I read this verse … “slaughter them”?! … Would Jesus ever say such a thing???

The eschatological interpretation of MacArthur sees Jesus as the king . . . but what if Jesus is not the king in this parable? In other words, what if he didn't say slaughter them? What if the king is someone else? Which character in the parable reflects Jesus' ethical behavior? The king or the third servant? A minority view holds the king and two compliant servants are the villains, whereas the third servant is Christ! Now we can interpret Luke 19.27 to mean the king (devil), who rules over the secular kingdoms of the world (Luke 4.1-13), desires to "slaughter" those belonging to the Kingdom of God. Search Merrill Kitchen's "Rereading the Parable of the Pounds: A Social and Narrative Analysis of Luke 19.11-28". According to Kitchen, this minority view (which reverses the role of antagonist and protagonist) is supported in the Gospel of the Nazarenes (see Eusebius), 2 Clement, and Irenaeus. Read the parable again from this perspective . . . and then tell me what you think.

 

[Namaste Jesus]

Read the parable again from this perspective . . . and then tell me what you think.

That is an interesting take. I never looked at it quite that way before. Then again, I don't get into it that deep myself. When something seems contrary to what Jesus would otherwise teach, I just assume I read it wrong or it lost something in translation and leave it at that. Hopefully Thomas will weigh in soon and set us all straight.

 

[arthra]

I don't usually post in the Christian forum here but I'll give you my personal "take" on it..

I see the verse above as concluding a parable a story to illustrate a point. I wouldn't read any more into it than that.

 

[wil]

Generally here, we discuss the nuances of our own religions in the group provided for our religion...

When we cross the border into another religion we ask questions about their religion... We don't tell them what they think.

Or that what they think is wrong.

 

[wil]

Are you a christian? A theologian?

Interfaith at all?

 

[wil]

Here interfaith means... We discuss our faith with others of the same faith, argue scripture, discuss nuance and differences...

And when we go into rooms of others faiths we inquire, learn ask questions of those believers...

To date I've enjoyed my conversation with every Sufi I've met... We will see if that record can continue.

 

[Thomas]

... Metaphysical interpretations are always intriguing ... Is this method unique to Unity churches only? or do any other Christian sects adopt it too?

I'd have to say I don't think the definitions offered are 'metaphysical'. Or rather, there's no over metaphysic offered. Rather it's a glossary of Biblical terms interpreted according to a psychological paradigm.

All religions have it's metaphysical commentary, but the very nature of the beast means they're necessarily couched in technical language that renders them 'difficult' because they lack 'interest'. There's really no pastoral benefit into going into long technical discussions about the nature of 'being' or 'becoming', the difference between 'substance' and 'essence' or Aquinas' 'act' and 'esse'.

Personally I like metaphysics, but sometimes, Lord, is it dry!

But then that's where Catholic theology found itself before Vatican II and the Neue Theologie. Again, I like reading the Fathers because their metaphysic remains close to Scripture.

And again, the metaphysic/esoteric expositions of the Sophia Perennis under authors such as Guénon and Schuon, Pallis and Lings, etc. retains that classical 'exactitude' across all denominations, even though I dispute some of their assumptions with regard to the Catholic faith.

 

[Thomas]

The eschatological interpretation ... sees Jesus as the king . . .

This tends to be the consensus, I think.

The parables in Matthew and Luke are widely regarded as eschatalogical and pointing to the parousia. At this point it's worth recalling that Jesus is not called an 'apocalyptic prophet' for nothing!

While His idea of social and societal justice is often at odds with the contemporary interpretations of Jewish Scriptures, when it comes to the eschatalogical dimension He speaks of a Judgement in no uncertain terms. There is no prevarication, but again in the parables He does home in on hypocrisy and the human tendency to self-justification. His use of rather startling imagery serves then to underscore the importance of what He is talking about.

 

[wil]

Jesus as king? The prince of peace is a high priest of the order of Melchizedek... The king of peace...

I'd have to say I don't think the definitions offered are 'metaphysical'. Or rather, there's no over metaphysic offered. Rather it's a glossary of Biblical terms interpreted according to a psychological paradigm.

Biblical meanings of names as derived from Jewish meanings if names...many actually delineated in the Bible.

The metaphysic (beyond the physical/literal reading) is that there is an underlying meaning to be derived that would assist in similar situations in your own life.

 

[wil]

Thanks wil, Metaphysical interpretations are always intriguing ... Is this method unique to Unity churches only? or do any other Christian sects adopt it too?

Thx to Thomas for pointing out I missed this.

The metaphysic came before the unity sect. But the similar groups were formed by others in the early 1900s (Christian Science, Science of Mind) growing from the transcendentalists... The Filmores were running a Wednesday night Bible study group, discussing metaphysical interpretations if bible passages. Those in attendance as it grew were from all denominations...(as Unity did not exist), each going to their home churches on Sunday... After a number of years the attendees began insisting that there be a Sunday service added and not just the Bible study...by then they had already started printing flyers and newsletters themselves and upgraded their printing to become a publishing operation for books on the teachings.

So the original groups then and today come from all variety of denominations...when the teachings they receive at their own church no longer suffice....when whatever belief they were born into...they make their own choice for something else.

 

[wil]

But often, very often, once folks gain an basis of what unity is and believes they return to their prior church with new knowledge, understanding and vigor.

 

[Thomas]

The metaphysic (beyond the physical/literal reading) is that there is an underlying meaning to be derived that would assist in similar situations in your own life.

That's my point ... that's not what is commonly understood as metaphysics.

To be fair, I was working from the link you provided for, I think, the Metaphysical Bible Dictionary, which isn't really metaphysics at all, but rather readings of Biblical terms and then a subsequent interpretation according to Unity principles.

Metaphysics is the discussion of First Principles. or the science of the Absolute and of the true nature of things.

Metaphysical in relation to Mystical/Revelation:
Metaphysics as such concerns itself with universal realities considered objectively, whereas 'mystical' considers the same realities subjectively, that is, in
relation to the contemplative soul, insofar as they enter operatively into contact with it through the transmission of Revelation.

The Biblical origin and meaning of names is not metaphysics.

The Greek myths, for example, are interpreted in much the same way as Fillmore interprets the Bible, as a manual of 'spiritual psychology' which was all the rage and underpins much of the 'New Thought' of the various denominations that sprang up about that time —

There are various sects of this "New Thought," to use another of the names by which it calls itself; but their agreements are so profound that their differences may be neglected for my present purpose, and I will treat the movement, without apology, as if it were a simple thing.

It is an optimistic scheme of life, with both a speculative and a practical side. In its gradual development during the last quarter of a century, it has taken up into itself a number of contributory elements, and it must now be reckoned with as a genuine religious power...

One of the doctrinal sources of Mind-cure is the four Gospels; another is Emersonianism or New England transcendentalism; another is Berkeleyan idealism; another is spiritism, with its messages of "law" and "progress" and "development"; another the optimistic popular science evolutionism of which I have recently spoken; and, finally, Hinduism has contributed a strain. (William James The Varieties of Religious Experience, New York: U Virginia, pp. 92–93.)

 

[Ahanu]

This tends to be the consensus, I think.

The parables in Matthew and Luke are widely regarded as eschatalogical and pointing to the parousia. At this point it's worth recalling that Jesus is not called an 'apocalyptic prophet' for nothing!

Okay. The early Church expected Christ's return, so they interpreted this parable to mean they shouldn't grow slack because of the delay.

While His idea of social and societal justice is often at odds with the contemporary interpretations of Jewish Scriptures, when it comes to the eschatalogical dimension He speaks of a Judgement in no uncertain terms. There is no prevarication, but again in the parables He does home in on hypocrisy and the human tendency to self-justification. His use of rather startling imagery serves then to underscore the importance of what He is talking about.

The alternative reading to the consensus also doesn't mesh well with our contemporary capitalist culture, in which profit . . . at any cost regardless of who one runs over . . . is the number one priority, I think, because read from this perspective, the master in the parable looks more like Jordan from The Wolf of Wall Street in the peasant's eyes since he exploits the poor.

The third servant undermines his master's exploitation because he didn't participate in the corrupt system. The parable warns against those who exploit the poor. That seems to be the gist of things. How did those first two servants earn more money anyway? They probably handed out loans with exorbitant interest rates . . . and if the farmers couldn't pay back the debt, the elite acquired their land. The third servant's language ("you reap what you did not sow") takes on an interesting color.

The actions of the third servant match the actions Jesus valued--which are against loaning money and taking interest to exploit others (Gospel of Thomas 95; Luke 6.35) and for giving benefits without expecting nothing in return (Luke 10.30-35). This runs contrary to the master's thinking. The master in the story appears evil . . . from the perspective of the nonelite that first heard Jesus' parable.

 

[Thomas]

The early Church expected Christ's return, so they interpreted this parable to mean they shouldn't grow slack because of the delay.

Quite.

The alternative reading to the consensus also doesn't mesh well with our contemporary capitalist culture, in which profit . . . at any cost regardless of who one runs over . . . is the number one priority, I think, because read from this perspective, the master in the parable looks more like Jordan from The Wolf of Wall Street in the peasant's eyes since he exploits the poor.

Isn't that a contemporary assumption? There's no suggestion of exploitation or usury in the text.

Christ was the friend of tax collectors, and they were widely regarded as something akin to a criminal collaborator ...

The third servant undermines his master's exploitation because he didn't participate in the corrupt system.

I'm sorry, I can't see this. It does seem rather like a post-modern interpretation.