The parable that Jesus tells in Luke 19:12-27 is interesting, to say the least:

Given that the "nobleman" in this parable patently represents God and/or Jesus, this certainly appears to be an allegedly "perfect" Savior of the World advocating genocide upon all non-Christians. Under Christ's edict, those who "would not that [Jesus] should reign over them" are to be robbed and brutally executed by Christians.

I think this isn't the kind of thing that most Christians like to envision their Savior advocating; so how can the above passage be explained, without making Christ look like a first-century Hitler wannabe?

- Nathan

[This message has been edited by njhartsh (edited May 27, 2001).]

Interesting. Actually, what is needed here is an understanding of the nature of parables--they're not to be interpreted like allegories (as Augustine was somewhat guilty of). The thing about allegories is that they're symbolic, and everything in the story represents something in reality. A parable, by contrast, has only one central meaning, the details of which shouldn't be overly scrutinized, as just about any student of hermeneutics will tell you.

With this in mind, the main teaching of the above parable is Jesus' call to be faithful with what one is given (this is a message to the believers--it would have no relevance for unbelievers). What appears to be going on here is Jesus is chastizing and warning those who are false believers or even apostates (and we know this because the person was given a trust in the first place).

Another point is that because this is a parable (or even if it were an allegory), the exegete should know better than to take the closing verse so literally as to think Jesus was wanting His disciples to take up swords afterward and start butchering the Sadducees and Roman officials. A more plausible interpretation would be to reason that Jesus is here referring to the judgment at the end of the age--a time when unbelievers, false believers, and apostates alike will stand before God and be judged for their sins. Of course, skeptics have a whole range of objections for that particular issue, but that's the beyond the scope of this post.

Hope this is illuminating. Good day.

Andrew

This is indeed an 'interesting' gambit, but clearly it places considerable power in the hands of anyone who gets to decide what the 'central meaning' of a given parable truly is. Myself, I would think that the treatment of those who "would not that I should reign over them," in light of the profuse attention paid to such persons in the parable, is the 'central meaning' of Luke 19:12-27. (Perhaps it's just a matter of our disparate perspectives--the world looks understandably different to the parties on opposite ends of the Crusader's sword.) You want to focus far more on "servants" One and Two, which seems strange to me given that they're mere set-ups to the punch line in verse 27. But to each his own, I suppose.

Well, that's an 'interesting' statement. What kind of 'believer' calls God/Jesus an "austere man" and dares to criticize him to his face? The "nobleman" himself points out that Servant Three "would not that I reign over him"; turning such a party into a believer thus seems far too 'interesting' to me.

Oh, okay. So Jesus was just in favor of genocide against apostates. This seems to me somewhat less than a ringing vindication.

As an aside, you clearly have no reason to conclude that the 'trust' can only symbolize faith in God. Given a Christian worldview, obviously any non-believer--and not just an apostate--by definition 'squanders' several things (her soul, her free will, her opportunity to accept Christ as her personal Lord and Savior, etc.) during her lifetime. Your account of the parable's symbolism seems to me quite a ways to the rosy side of literary optometry.

Oh, no, no. It's clear in the parable that the "nobleman" has to come back before the Good Servants get to start cutting throats; and as heretics then and now have noted, this particular "nobleman" seems to be taking his time. But genocide next Thursday, genocide at the Second Coming--I fail to see the ethical distinction. (And given the demonstrable ability/tendency of Christian believers throughout the Common Era to diagnose the Second Coming as imminent, I don't think that distinction does much to hold the Crusaders back.)

I have, as noted, no quarrel with your timing point. But your use of the passive voice ('be judged') is, once again, 'interesting': I'd like to draw your attention to the last paragraph, where the "nobleman" implores his True Believers to act upon the judgment you mention. If Servant Three truly does represent us apostates, what could "bring hither, and slay them before me" mean except for genocide? (Mass stand-up comedy?)

You are of course correct that we skeptics have a 'whole range of objections' to the entire Judgment Day scheme, but in my experience it's usually not put to us as an episode of robbery and mass murder committed by Christians. Significantly, I don't think any Christian I know sees Judgment Day that way, either; but based on Luke 19:12-27 (even after your attempt at an apologetic), I don't see why they don't.

- Nathan

[This message has been edited by njhartsh (edited May 27, 2001).]

That is the traditional interpretation, with God identified with the master and his followers the servants.

However a bit of historical context throws a up an alternate interpretation. In first century Palestine:-
1) the Jewish peasantry viewed those profiting from money lending as evil.
2) The Jewish peasantry were being very heavily taxed with most of their income flowing to the upper class. As the were extremely poor to begin with, the food remaining for themselves was barely at the subsistence level.
3) the Jewish economy was being commercialised and with that came the opportunity for those who had money to lend it, secured against land of course. With that came defaults and peasants losing their lands, lands which would have been in their family for generations.

The audience of Jesus could have interpreted the parable this way:-
- the master was an evil person who had probably gained his wealth in the first place by exploiting the poor
- they would have been horrified at the two servants who made money because by lending money and receiving interest in return because they were themselves exploiting their own people and breaking the Jewish law by receiving interest
- the servant with the one talent who merely buried it and gave it back they would have thought of as the hero, for he refused to perpetuate the practice of money lending and exploitation and stood up to the evil land owner.

So when Jesus concludes the story with that servant being thrown out onto the street, they might have concluded that Jesus meant that being a member of the kingdom of god meant not bowing to pressure to chase riches, standing up for others and loving them by not exploiting them in lending them money, and yet having to suffer at the hands of this evil world for the sake of the kingdom of god.

So says JD Crossan anyway....


[This message has been edited by james-2-24 (edited May 27, 2001).]

I never said anything about focusing so much on servants one and two. The focus is on all three of them and the nobleman. And as I said before, the third servant didn't want to be ruled over, even though he was given a trust. In my previous post, I said that the trust was representative of some sort of faith. But I think I need to correct that, seeing as though a more accurate meaning would be a calling by God. This makes more sense. The nobleman gives three servants certain trusts. Two are faithful and end up getting more. One buries his trust and is slain. Spiritually, Christians are called into certain types of ministries. Many Christians obey such calls by God and are rewarded accordingly. But some--and in the case of this parable, one with a small calling--choose not to do anything with it at all. They abandon the faith (hence, apostates--also false believers) and end up condemned on judgment day.

In light of what I've just explained above, it should be clearer now why this message is for believers. Sorry about the confusion in the previous post. Here, Nathan, you've twisted my words. I said Jesus' intended audience here were believers--not every character in the parable. What type of believer would call Jesus an "austere man" to His face and "would not that He reign over Him"? Only a false believer or one who used to be genuine and has now gone apostate. (Actually, as an aside, sometimes believers in moments of great frustration and anger will lash out against God, calling Him names and so forth. But that's not what's going on here.)

I've already corrected myself about what "trust" symbolizes in this parable. To an extent, you're correct when you say that every person--unbelievers included--squanders a trust given to them by God. But I don't think a compelling case can be made that that's what Jesus chiefly has in mind in this passage. As for your first statement here--no, Jesus was not in favor of apostate genocide. You've just thrown that unfounded assertion out to score points. This is begging the question.

I'm afraid all you've done here is fault church history for two things: 1) Expecting Jesus to return sooner than He really is. 2) Interpreting this parable as meaning they need to go destroy the heretics then and there. If you're making accusations against Christianity in the darker parts of its history for such things, then quite frankly I must agree with you! The church was wrong for interpreting the Scripture this way (although according to the church history I've studied, this parable was never the basis for expeditions like the Crusades--it was the stretching of Augustine's words and later works that gave them excuse to carry out such misdeeds). My point is, the above statement does nothing to show that Jesus meant for Christians to go out and kill unbelievers. I think the way the Orthodoxy has interpretted the closing verse is that at the end of the age (when Jesus returns), the saints will take part in judging the sinners (cf. Mt. 12:41-42; 19:28; Lk. 11:19, 31-32; 22:30; 1 Cor. 4:5; 6:2-3; Rev. 20:4).

First paragraph first. Again, as I showed above, when the nobleman calls forth his servants to slay the unfaithful one (the "apostate," if you will), it is clear that this takes place after the nobleman returns. In reality, it again points to the fact that once Jesus returns, then (and only then) will the believers be given the right to judge.

Second paragraph. Your literal interpretation of "robbery and mass murder" is not in line with how parables are to be exegeted. Jesus (as well as all other rabbis) never meant for their parables to be taken so literally, and His audience knew that. (Plus, when taking into account that no one was ever persecuted by a single Christian until the time of Constantine, don't you think your interpretation of this passage might be a little off the mark? If the disciples thought Jesus wanted them to rob and kill unbelievers, then why isn't the book of Acts filled with such bloodshed instead of peaceful evangelism?)

In interpreting biblical passages, especially those obviously not inteded to be taken literally, we must try to understand what the author or speaker is wanting to convey in their message. This also requires understanding the social context (a la "james-2-24") and seeing how the passage in question was interpretted in its earliest history--by those who were closest to the story itself. I do hope you will take such matters into careful consideration in the future, Nathan.

Good day to you.

Andrew

Trimming to the semi-relevant matters:

Perhaps you should take a second look. Between the “tardy Savior” aside and the “bad diagnosis” aside (what do you think it means that I put the latter in parentheses?), in the center of the paragraph is the central point of that paragraph--a point which you deftly failed to address, busily tilting at windmill asides.

Yes, and that’s exactly what I stipulated in the italicized paragraph immediately above.

You have argued that Servant Three is an apostate, not an unbeliever; and I have responded that genocide against apostates is no meaningful gain over genocide against unbelievers. If we are agreed on that, then your “apostates” point is useless in a defense of Jesus’ uprightness.

You have argued that the events I decry are to happen after the Second Coming and no sooner; and I have responded that genocide after the Second Coming is no meaningful gain over genocide sooner. If we are agreed on that, then your timing point is useless in a defense of Jesus’ uprightness.

Considering that they do your case no good, perhaps you should drop these side issues?

I find it very amusing the way you have described the ending of the parable. In addition to the above, you’ve written that Servant Three “is slain” and “end[s] up condemned.” But Luke 19:27 is in the imperative voice--not in your oblivious passive.

Meanwhile, your claim above is entirely a product of your imagination. Nowhere in the parable do the first two servants “judge” (or receive “the right to judge”) anything. It is the nobleman who judges. The point you have been trying very hard to evade is that the Good Servants do not “judge,” they “have” ... authority over cities. They are “given” ... all of the earthly possessions of Servant Three. And lastly, they “bring,” and they “slay.”

“Slay,” Andrew. That servant is you. “Slay.”

This is a rather egregious case of the special pleading fallacy. You yourself have seen fit to align several elements of the parable (the nobleman, the servants, the “trust,” the servants’ actions with regard to their trusts, etc.) with things that they represent in the world outside of the parable. But when it comes time to explain verse 27--the very moral of the story--you suddenly suspend your methods. You jump up, pull the fire alarm and run out of the building:

I wonder where that logic was when you were claiming that the “trust” was equivalent to the “trust” of “a calling by God”?

Since you have beautifully avoided answering the absolutely central question to this entire thread, I’ll ask it again: What could “bring hither, and slay them before me” mean except for genocide?

Indeed. Some of “us” attempt to do this honestly, without using ‘the proper method of exegesis’ as a convenient cover simply to smuggle in our own presuppositions about the characters involved without admitting it. Some of “us” don’t invent story elements (“the believers [will] be given the right to judge”) without any textual support whatsoever.

Some of us try to get the true meaning out of the text, instead of cramming it into said text.

Once again, this is laughable. “James” forwarded an interpretation of the parable that turns our reading (which he calls the “traditional” one) on its head: on his account, Servant Three is the Christian, and the “nobleman” is “an evil person.” Do you seriously expect us to believe that you (who thinks that the “nobleman” represents Christ) are incorporating “James”’s exegesis? Citing him to buttress your argument speaks very poorly of either (a) your intelligence or (b) your honesty.

Can’t you defend the parable on text alone, without engaging in a smuggling operation?

- Nathan

[This message has been edited by njhartsh (edited May 28, 2001).]

Oy, so that’s why the blades on my windmill were looking so bent the other day.... Anyway, to requote you, I’m guessing the central point of the paragraph would be the statement “But genocide next Thursday, genocide at the Second Coming--I fail to see the ethical distinction”? Ah, very good. Again, I apologize for misunderstanding the first one or two times. But my answer to that here will also answer about three or four of the objections in your most recent post, seeing as though they were basically the same thing. In the context of the Second Coming--in other words, what is going to take place at the end of the age--genocide and judgment are not the same thing. According to Scripture (and I gave you numerous references), the saints will sit on judgment thrones at the end of the age and pronounce judgment on the unbelievers. They will not kill them. (We know this because technically, everyone will be dead by then!) And to say that Christians will kill all non-Christians at the end of the age and only use the literal reading of a parable to prove this point is stretching it a bit. Jesus’ command, “bring thither and slay them before me,” is representative of the judging which His servants must do at the end of time. If you would like to label the casting of sinners into hell as “genocide,” then to each his own.

I would consider this issue pretty much resolved by what I just said in the previous paragraph. Judgment does not equate with genocide unless you, Nathan, can show that the two are equal.

Then let me rephrase them if you insist: “Servant three buries his trust, and the nobleman commands the other two to slay him.” (Meaning, a Christian turns apostate, and the faithful Christians stand in judgment on him at the end of the age.) “Apostates abandon the faith, and Jesus will send the faithful to sit on thrones and judge them at the appointed time.” Let me know if that’s more agreeable.

Whoa now--if we are to go for the literal reading of the parable you desire, do we really expect to see faithful Christians starting to become mayors in the towns where they are faithful? I don't know if Mayor Guggliani is a Christian, but if he's not, that must mean there are no believers in New York City! What we know from the parable is that the first two servants have been given authority. What type of authority? Obviously, a spiritual kind. And we can assess from the close of the parable (good ol’ verse 27) that the specific authority the faithful have been given is the authority to judge. Tell me, what is your alternate interpretation of the authority the two servants are given?

As for the third servant’s possessions, I will admit that this one’s a bit more thorny. He had the opportunity to gain riches but squandered them. (In reality, he had the opportunity to gain many blessings but squandered them.) As Jesus did so often, He was probably here referring to “treasures in heaven”--treasures that the apostate would no longer be eligible to receive. See, that’s the thing we must keep in mind about Jesus: We humans always think in such physical, material terms, but He speaks in spiritual terms, and it’s easy to get confused.

As for the slaying, I’ve said it too many times now: Judgment.

I’m getting hungry...very hungry.... Oh wait--that’s not the effect your hypnosis was supposed to have on me!

Well, what fun is it to stay in the building after pulling the fire alarm? Seriously, I’ve already explained verse 27 several times now. (See what I mean when I said the top explanation would answer about four of your arguments?)

For one, to assert that “trust” symbolizes a “calling by God” is hardly rendering a literal interpretation. Since I so beautifully (eh, perhaps) answered the absolutely central question of this entire thread, I’ll answer it again: “Bring thither, and slay them before Me” symbolically means, “(In the end time,) bring them out of the tombs and judge them before My throne.”

Aye, I should probably explain that. In referring to “James,” I didn’t mean his social context was correct. He had opened his post by mentioning historical context, and simply using such context was really all I meant. Referring to social context in general, not necessarily his. That is misleading--thanks for bringing that up.

So, is it still a smuggling operation?

Andrew

Without standards for analyzing/evaluating/judging [A/E/J or a/e/j] people/things/events [P/T/E or p/t/e], anything goes, emotionalism reigns: if it feels good, it must be true/if it feels bad it must be false; if it is wanted, it must be true/if it is not wanted, it must be false; etc.

Here is a list of potential standards for the analysis, evaluation and judgment of holy books:

1. The gods, if they exist, must be subject to the same laws of logic as are men.

2. Holy books not only in their original form but all copies and translations must be inspired, written, guided, etc. by gods, not written by men.

Eyewitness books/reports ought to be separate from holy books, clearly marked, and their authors clearly biographed.

As men write, we might expect them to make mistakes; but when the gods inspire/write/etc., we should be able to expect that they should not make any mistakes.

3. The presence of contradictions of any kind in a book shall be evidence that the book was not inspired/written/guided/etc. by gods and is therefore not an holy book.

Contradictions shall include (1) differences of temporal sequences; (2) exclusions/inclusions wherein details excluded in one story or account are included in another story/account, and vice versa.

Holy books should not contain multiple stories of the same people/things/events existing/occurring at the same timepoints and in the same locations. Multiple stories are unnecessary; one story should be sufficient to give all the details which are true.

The presence of multiple stories containing contradictions concerning the details of the same p/t/e's existing/happening at the same timepoints and location logically means (A) one story is true and (B) all others are false or all stories are false, because all (C) stories which contain conflicting/contradictory details could not possibly be true. Thus, the presence of conflicting/contradictory multiple stories shall be proof/evidence that they were written by men and not inspired by gods.

4. The presence of historical inaccuracies in a book shall be evidence that the book was not inspired/written/guided/etc. by gods and is therefore not an holy book.

5. The presence of archaeological inaccuracies in a book shall be evidence that the book was not inspired/written/guided/etc. by gods and is therefore not an holy book.

6. The presence of hypocrisy by the gods in a book shall be evidence that the book was not inspired/written/guided/etc. by gods and is therefore not an holy book.

Hypocrisy shall be (A) saying one thing [setting standards/guidelines/commandments/etc.] and doing another or (B) doing one thing in one situation and something else in other similar situations.

Gods should be logical and free of hypocrisy. They should be consistent in all that they say and do. Inconsistencies shall be clear and obvious evidence of the hypocrisy of the gods, or else that the stories/accounts in which inconsistencies of the gods are presented are written by men and not inspired by gods.

7. The gods should inspire/etc. the writing of holy books in a simple form comprehensible to all people of all cultures/ethnic groups [so any translations would have the exact meaning] so that any possibility of having to be a scholar of ethnic literary devices as a qualification for who should be able to read
accurately and effectively holy books is eliminated--so normal people [nonscholars] would be qualified to read the holy books, not just priests/scholars.

Note that standard #7 requires holy books to be written in such a way that there could be no misinterpretation, or that there should be no special requirements for interpretting the written words.

If the Xn Bible is a holy book, then the Lucan passage cited, Luke 19:12-27, should mean exactly what its words mean, whatever THAT is.

Allowing for zero interpretation: Noblemen should be allowed to kill servants who do not increase the value of whatever they are entrusted with by the noblemen.

Allowing for a modest amount of interpretation: If the nobleman is a god/son of a god/etc., then the passage MUST be read as it stands, and Xns should be out killing nonXns, etc.

Allowing for more interpretation: Anything goes.

There should be no problem understanding/interpreting holy books.

The gods ought to have the foresight to know how to avoid misinterpretations and thus cause the books to be written using simple, clear language.

The fact that there are confusions over interpretations of the Xn Bible suggests that the Bible does not hold up to the standards as outlined and that it is therefore not an holy book.

THAT being the case, who gives a damn about anything written in the Bible?

If theists want to convert atheists and agnostics, the best way to do so is to produce physical evidence in the form of the gods themselves.

But even THAT requires standards for identifying gods.

Such standards are presented on www.bobkwebsite.com

Theists!!! Show us the gods!!!

Huh? What does that post have to do with the topic at hand?

Andrew

Let us put it this way. Suppose I am a Christian Fundamentalist Preacher and I say that "Luke 19:27 clearly tells us to slay the unbeliever."

How do you prove me wrong? Why is your interpretation better than my interpretation?

If you show me a verse that says, "don't slay the unbeliever," why I am I to believe your verse should be taken literally and mine figuratively, and not the reverse?

Is there a consistent, rigorous formal system for resolving these apparent contradictions? Or are we to use our best judgement? And again, how can you say that your judgement is better than mine? Is there any actual rigor at all to biblical exegesis, or is it all opinion and political authority?

On what basis should I accept a set of proposed standards? Why are standards like "whichever verse best confirms my intution" "better" than "Bible verses are true to the extent that they don't contradict scientific principles"? or "If I perceive a contradiction I will flip a coin"?

Why should I even care what your interpretive schema is? You got to make yours up to satisfy your own emotional requirements, why can't I?

The "firm ground" that y'all like to claim is just the opinions of men with sufficient political skill to persuade people to accept their standards.

[This message has been edited by SingleDad (edited May 29, 2001).]