Killing his enemies #LukeActs2014

“He replied, ‘I tell you that to everyone who has, more will be given, but as for the one who has nothing, even what they have will be taken away. 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 19:26-27, NIV)

Pssst … Jesus tells the parable that ends with these words right before his entry into Jerusalem. You don’t need to search too long for the point here.

And, just to be clear, this is Jesus talking when he tells the parable about the king who has his enemies dragged before him and killed.

Jesus.

Meek and mild.

Nothing like that mean YHWH in the Old Testament who wipes out whole cities.

Bring my enemies over here and kill them.

… red and yellow, black and white, they are precious in his sight …

Those who have much will be given more. Those who have nothing, will have even that taken away.

This is Jesus.

Advertisements

8 thoughts on “Killing his enemies #LukeActs2014

  1. I don’t find this parable that clear-cut. Luke opens the parable saying it is to correct the disciples’ understanding that the kingdom of God will appear immediately (v11). Some translations of v12 also make it seem as though the nobleman is seizing power that is not rightfully his (my limited read on the Greek suggests this could go either way), which certainly wouldn’t fit Jesus as Messiah.

    1. I don’t know that the rightfulness of the ruler’s claim in the parable would necessarily disqualify it. In the previous chapter, Jesus compares God to an unjust judge (Luke 18:1-8); before that, he encouraged his disciples to imitate an “unrighteous steward” (Luke 16:1-9); in explaining his power over the devils, Jesus compares himself to a plunderer (Luke 11:21-23). Parables are parables, and Jesus seems to have enjoyed giving us stories that stretch our imagination of God in all sorts of directions, including depicting God in ways that may be offensive to a pious sensibility.

      1. Yes, you are on to something the parables point to. We shouldn’t imagine the Kingdom of God arrives without shock and upset I like that delirious picture of Christ’s coming in Revelation 6:15-17, when kings and magnates and everyone else try to hide themselves in the rocks “from the face of the one seated on the throne…”

      2. Jesus doesn’t compare God to an unjust judge in Luke 18; he contrasts God to him. If even an unjust judge who fears no one acts this way, how much more then will God act? I think a number of parables are designed specifically not to set up parallels but contrasts.

        1. I’m a bit unclear about the conclusion that the king had no right to be king. It says that the people did not want him to be king, but is there clear language that it was somehow a illegitimate claim? I see strong parallels with Jesus who came to Jerusalem as the king that many people did not want.

          Luke wedges the parable between a statement about coming to seek and save the lost and the entry to Jerusalem. Do you think Luke’s intention (and Jesus’) was that the parable be heard as some sort of counter-factual?

          What is the lesson of the parable — told because some expected the kingdom to come right away — in your reading?

          I read it as speaking to the need to be productive and do kingdom works until the king comes again. The hated king by many, but the king nonetheless. Is not Jesus a despised king even now, so much that people reject the notion that he is king and Lord?

          Help me see what I am failing to see.

  2. Sharing what I see.
    Luke chapter 19: 11-28

    The setting is near Jerusalem, (land of the Jews)
    Jesus was addressing a people who thought the Kingdom of God would show itself there.
    Only one people held to that belief and that was those of Jewish heritage.
    The first and second servants are rewarded equitably.
    It is the third servant that draws the most attention of the King.

    The King, by the servant’s words, comes to understand the servants perception of the King.
    The servant has misjudged the King
    Do you think the King was insulted?

    The King says …out of your own mouth I condemn you. v.22
    Is the King saying as you have judged me I will judge you?

    The King than suggest it would have been better to have put the money in the bank and rec’d interest. v.23
    Wesley suggests this was not interest in excess.
    I am not sure about that.
    I am inclined to believe the King is stating the sin of usury would have been less offensive to the King than doing nothing ,gaining nothing and passing judgment / or misjudging the King……but that is just my opinion.

    The reward is another point of contention. The other servants question.
    giving another coin to the one that has 10. In their eyes this must have been viewed as unfair and unjust but in the eyes of the King it is not. The first servant is rewarded abundantly.

    So you have a King that entrusts his wealth to his servants. Upon his return he is happy with some and unhappy with another. The King delegates reward and punishment. Some love him, some fear him, some think his rewards are unfair and some hate him.

    Who is this King?

    Usury-the practice of lending money and requiring the borrower to pay a high amount of interest.
    Usury was forbidden under Jewish law
    “If you lend money to any of My people, even to the poor with thee, thou shalt not be to him as a creditor; neither shalt thou lay upon him interest” (Exodus 22:24).

    “Thou shalt not lend upon interest to thy brother: interest of money, interest of victuals, interest of anything that is lent upon interest. Unto a foreigner thou mayest lend upon interest; but unto thy brother thou shalt not lend upon interest; that the Lord thy God may bless thee in all that thou puttest thy hand into, in the land whither thou goest in to possess it” (Deuteronomy 23:20-21).

    An austere man could be harsh, without decoration, and stern,.

Comments are closed.