mountainman

Luke 19:27
But those mine enemies, which would not that I should reign over them, bring hither, and slay [them] before me.

What's the official story about this verse?

sotto voce

Official? The version quoted was never authorised, if that aspect is intended to be relevant.

The first thing to note is that this sentence is sliced, bleeding at both ends, out of a parable. Parables are not intended to be taken literally. So bringing people hither and slaying them is not what any reader should even contemplate. A parable, 'a fictitious narrative of common life conveying a moral,' according to Strong's, was never to be treated as a foundation for practical policy by anyone. Not by Constantine, not by James I, not by any religious person, however pious, fervent, devoted or blessed. On the contrary, the true followers of Jesus were liable to be brought forth and slain, then as now.

''"But those enemies of mine who did not want me to be a king over them — bring them here and kill them in front of me.'"' NIV

In this case, the story related to the common practice of monarchs eliminating political or personal opposition, particularly on accession. The spiritual lesson to be drawn is that opposition to deity results in eternal damnation. The moral was that, if earthly kings remove their opponents, don't expect the creator to be any different.

Toto

The squeamish modern liberal interpretation is that this is the King speaking, not Jesus, and it's just, um, something.

There's a long thread in the archives on this. You could search for it.

Steve Weiss

No minister that I have met will quote Luke 19:27. It is skipped over like it doesn't exist, and those who do address it are revisionists of the highest order. But why be concerned about non-believers being murdered when disobedient children are to be stoned, one should renounce one's family in order to follow Jesus, the Lord killed nearly every living thing on the planet in a huge flood, and Judgement Day awaits for the non-pious?

Steve Weiss

..."true followers of Jesus were liable to be brought forth and slain, then as now." Then as now? Who set up the Crusades, witch burning, the Inquisition, murder for heresy, banned books, etc.? Ever hear of the Hundred Years War? How about religious wars in England and Ireland? And wasn't Jesus King of Kings and thus entitled to have the spiritually impure damned to hell?

sotto voce

Christians (as alleged) have been murdered in Pakistan, Turkey, Indonesia and many other countries in the last few years. One person has estimated that more have been murdered in the last few decades than were murdered in the days of the apostolic church.

Constantinians, of the papist variety. Papists of course exist by virtue (!) of criminality, so the question is somewhat surprising.

This is more understandable. Calvinists, mostly. Early Calvinism was a 'cleaned up' form of Constantinianism, papalism having grown too scandalous to be credible.

Constantinians, of the papist variety. This behaviour is only to be expected of them.

That was fought over claret. Now that's an issue worth a bit of fisticuffs.

More than one issue here, but all European 'religious' wars were the consequence of the baneful religious politicisation of the appalling Roman Empire that the world still suffers from. Wars are extremely expensive, are fought by governments, and Christians never have much, if any, influence over governments.

He will be king of kings, according to the NT. At present, governments can do what the hell they like, so to speak.

Patience, patience.

judge

The wars of the jews

Solo

The parable of the pounds is commonly believed to be an allusion to the journey of Herod Archelaus to Rome to receive his kingdom and the embassy against him by his subjects (Antiquities XVii, 11.) 19:27 in that context would be retribution for those who conspired against Archelaus, with what appears a strong hint at a coming judgment on the Jews for rejecting Jesus as their king.

Best,
Jiri

Sheshbazzar

This was the verse that the Popes and clerics of the Catholic Church invoked as the command they were carrying out in the executions of the countless thousands of heretics, infidels, and unrepentant unbelievers.

To resist the rule of the Catholic Church, in the judgment of the Holy Roman Catholic Church, was to be refusing to submit to the rule of Christ himself, the head of The Holy Catholic Church. and his Vicar the Pope.

When they tortured and murdered heretics and unbelievers who would not submit to Catholic Church rules, they being good soldiers, were only carrying out the order which was given to them by their Commander in Chief.

Thus no matter how many they killed, they were never considered guilty by the Church, because they were only obeying and following this order given by their king.

sotto voce

It's believed by some. Archelaus was not a Jew, and was of disreputable character; was not actually made king, only ethnarch; was only a Roman vassal, in any case; and was dismissed by Rome due to public complaints. The complaints previously made, that some think were the subject of allusion by Jesus, were actually reasonable complaints of incompetence, and may have been vindicated by the eventual outcome. Rome evidently got this one wrong.

So Jesus did not pick a good model, if this is who he alluded to. His hearers possibly thought, "Not Archelaus, then." However, the concept of sending a deputation to request that a ruler not be appointed would have been made familiar to them by the history of Archelaus.

This parable, incidentally, is one that supports the view that Jesus hinted at a possible long period between his departure and his return.