Jesus Approved Execution of Unfaithful?

[Joseph Alward]

Decades had already passed by the time the writer of the Lukan gospel penned his stories about Jesus, and no doubt those who believed the stories about Jesus coming in the lifetimes of his disciples were losing faith, for most of the disciples would have been long dead when the Lukan gospel was written, around 80-100 AD, 50-70 years after Jesus' alleged crucifixion.

The scare the people into maintaining their faith, even though Jesus hadn't returned when he said he would, the author apparently manufactured a story about Jesus telling a parable about the man who was rejected by his people, and went away, returned a king, and had those who earlier had rejected him killed:

[Jesus] went on to tell them a parable, because he was near Jerusalem and the people thought that the kingdom of God was going to appear at once. “A man of noble birth went to a distant country to have himself appointed king and then to return… But his subjects hated him [and said], ‘We don't want this man to be our king.’ “He was made king, however, and returned home….[and said] …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 19:12-27)

Either Jesus was subtly warning those didn't believe that he would be God's king on earth that they would be killed when he returned as king, or else the Luke author made this story up. Which is it?

[lee_merrill]

Hi Joseph,

Either Jesus was subtly warning those didn't believe that he would be God's king on earth that they would be killed when he returned as king, or else the Luke author made this story up. Which is it?

I think Jesus told people both that he would be away a long while, and also coming quickly! But that's another topic...

I think the evidence that Luke was not making up his tales is pretty good, people used to say he made up this or that historical detail, only they keep finding out confirmation of his details.

Now it would be difficult to include the sort of incidental details that Luke has in his narratives, 50 or more years after the fact, I think that shows he was listening to eyewitnesses, or telling what he saw himself.

And yes, Jesus was saying that those who were his enemies would be put to death at his return, I don't think he was trying to be subtle about that...

Blessings,
Lee

[Joseph Alward]

Hi Joseph,

And yes, Jesus was saying that those who were his enemies would be put to death at his return, I don't think he was trying to be subtle about that...

In the parable, the person of noble birth who will be king after his return is Jesus, and it is the king who asks that his enemies be brought before him and killed.

Do you not think that the author of Luke made this up? This parable about the king (Jesus) ordering his enemies killed in front of him contradicts other gospel claims about Jesus, namely, that Jesus allegedly taught that one should forgive one's enemies. Which is it? Did Jesus teach that he (the king/Jesus) would order that his enemies be brought to him and killed, or did he teach that one's enemies should be forgiven? Killing one's enemies is hardly the same as forgiving them, is it?

[technomage]

Do you not think that the author of Luke made this up?

I really don't have enough knowledge to definitively state whether or not this parable was original or inserted. However, as a skeptic of the historicity of Jesus (one who outright rejects the Gospels as a completely accurate account of Jesus), this would not be out of character.

If Jesus was an historical person, he was probably an apocalyptic preacher: the main message of this kind of religious understanding was "Get your act straight, or God's gonna kick your butt!" Yes, this is a different way to say it, but it's no different from the folks now who go around claiming that atheism, or Christianity, or Communism, or Capitalism, or what have you, are leading to the immanent "end of the world as we know it."

This parable about the king (Jesus) ordering his enemies killed in front of him contradicts other gospel claims about Jesus, namely, that Jesus allegedly taught that one should forgive one's enemies. Which is it? Did Jesus teach that he (the king/Jesus) would order that his enemies be brought to him and killed, or did he teach that one's enemies should be forgiven? Killing one's enemies is hardly the same as forgiving them, is it?

That's not a contradiction: it's a notation of difference in status--and as such, neither refutes or affirms inspiration. If one was to assume that Jesus said that, and that he was specifically claiming to be the king that goes to another country (both very broad assumptions), then it makes perfect logical sense: kings had the authority to do things like that. A king could easily go around saying "Do as I say ("Forgive your enemies"), but not as I do ("I will judge them"). This was acceptable then--heck, it's acceptable now. Just because Bill Clinton got caught with his, er, um, hand in the cookie jar doesn't mean that he wants everyone to do it.

Justin

[Joseph Alward]

So you're saying that it's not a contradiction for the Bible in one place to have Jesus say that one should turn the other cheek, forgive one enemies, and in another place have Jesus warn parabolically that he would have his enemies dragged before him and killed when he returned as king? Since Jesus was god, he could do as he pleased, and demand that others do as he says, not as he does?

Do you not think that view is incompatible with the Bible's teaching that Jesus is kind and loving, as well as forgiving? How could a kind and loving man order his enemies to be dragged in front of him and killed?

[technomage]

So you're saying that it's not a contradiction for the Bible in one place to have Jesus say that one should turn the other cheek, forgive one enemies, and in another place have Jesus warn parabolically that he would have his enemies dragged before him and killed when he returned as king? Since Jesus was god, he could do as he pleased, and demand that others do as he says, not as he does?

Pretty much. Remember the cultural context: at the time of Jesus, you had the Middle Eastern concept of "God as Divine Despot," with only a partial admixture of the Helenistic god-concepts.To the minds at that time, God was the ultimate authority: He could do as He chose, simply and solely because He was God.

Do you not think that view is incompatible with the Bible's teaching that Jesus is kind and loving, as well as forgiving? How could a kind and loving man order his enemies to be dragged in front of him and killed?

To tell the truth, it makes little difference to me one way or another, as I'm no longer a Christian. However, even when I was, I did not see it as a contradiction for God to be kind, loving, and forgiving on the one hand, yet also stern, or even judgemental and merciless, on the other. Heck, I'm capable of both sets of attributes, and I'm only human. If I posit a God who is more capable than I am, then I must accept that He is also capable of a greater degree of complexity.

[shunyadragon]

I really don't have enough knowledge to definitively state whether or not this parable was original or inserted. However, as a skeptic of the historicity of Jesus (one who outright rejects the Gospels as a completely accurate account of Jesus), this would not be out of character.

If Jesus was an historical person, he was probably an apocalyptic preacher: the main message of this kind of religious understanding was "Get your act straight, or God's gonna kick your butt!" Yes, this is a different way to say it, but it's no different from the folks now who go around claiming that atheism, or Christianity, or Communism, or Capitalism, or what have you, are leading to the immanent "end of the world as we know it."


That's not a contradiction: it's a notation of difference in status--and as such, neither refutes or affirms inspiration. If one was to assume that Jesus said that, and that he was specifically claiming to be the king that goes to another country (both very broad assumptions), then it makes perfect logical sense: kings had the authority to do things like that. A king could easily go around saying "Do as I say ("Forgive your enemies"), but not as I do ("I will judge them"). This was acceptable then--heck, it's acceptable now. Just because Bill Clinton got caught with his, er, um, hand in the cookie jar doesn't mean that he wants everyone to do it.

Justin

I also believe that the parable may or may not have been added, and it is not in contradiction of the times and charactor of Jesus. I do believe there is abundant evidence that the Gospels were a patch work of oral traditions and one or more other documents.

Jesus was not a pacifist, his teachings for a greater compassion between individuals with differences and the less fortunate reinforced the teachings all ready in the OT. This would not exclude the harshest of punishment for those that opposed God's Divine plan for humanity.

The fact that Jesus's prediction of all thing's to fulfilled in this generation, and Paul's statements reinforcing this understanding. There did need to other explanations for what did not happen.

It was not Bill Clinton's hand that was caught in cookie's jar.

[technomage]

It was not Bill Clinton's hand that was caught in cookie's jar.

I'm trying to keep it family friendly.

[lee_merrill]

This parable about the king (Jesus) ordering his enemies killed in front of him contradicts other gospel claims about Jesus, namely, that Jesus allegedly taught that one should forgive one's enemies. Which is it?

As Justin said, God can be both merciful and stern. And you can even forgive people, and still carry out a punishment, these two aspects are not exclusive:

Numbers 14:20-23 The Lord replied, "I have forgiven them, as you asked. Nevertheless, as surely as I live and as surely as the glory of the Lord fills the whole earth, not one of the men who saw my glory and the miraculous signs I performed in Egypt and in the desert but who disobeyed me and tested me ten times--not one of them will ever see the land I promised on oath to their forefathers. No one who has treated me with contempt will ever see it."

And if people don't die when they die, a punishment of death may even be a way to bring about repentance ... so they can be forgiven.

The fact that Jesus's prediction of all thing's ... fulfilled in this generation, and Paul's statements reinforcing this understanding. There did need to other explanations for what did not happen.

But Jesus seemed to know, and indicate, that these statements would be controversial!

Matthew 24:34-36 I tell you the truth, this generation will certainly not pass away until all these things have happened. Heaven and earth will pass away, but my words will never pass away. No one knows about that day or hour, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but only the Father.

"My words will never pass away," indicating that these words would be disputed, and then "No one knows about that day or hour," indicating that more may be in view here than just a time span.

Blessings,
Lee