Actually - I hope it’s ok to bring this up - I’ve heard people who aren’t Christians argue that Jesus did say that very thing by way of a parable. In Matthew’s gospel there’s a parable which ends with the king - who represents Jesus? - saying this:
“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.” (Matt 19:27)
Funnily enough my immediate response to your comment was a desire to defend Jesus.
It should be noted that … he didn’t say “kill your enemies”, but rather, “killy my enemies”.
Doesn’t one have to set this story against Jesus constant refusal to kill or participate in the killing of his enemies?
Still, you are right. It’s brutal. So much for simple answers. I still think it’s a fairly crappy idea to kill your enemies, whatever Jesus said. but that’s just me.
I wonder what Todd Hunter would have to say about this. And even more interesting, I wonder what Brian Mclaren or George Macdonald would have to say. (these are two of the people near the top of the shortish list entitled “people who are able to make christianity seem palatable to Benjamin”)
First this is a parable. Parables never make for good systematic theology. With a parable we must always look at the bigger picture. What was Jesus trying to say?
Was Jesus advocating the slaughter, the killing of others? I don’t think so, as that would be contrary to virtually everything else Jesus taught. When confronted with a verse that “might” not fit the consensus, we don’t toss aside the consensus. Instead, we recognize the verse as a difficult one and look for more understanding.
In the case of this verse, and the verses that surround it, it seems that judgment is the focus. For those who refuse to follow after Jesus there awaits judgment. Let’s not forget that God is the judge, not us. It is God who will finally judge all people and all things.
In Luke’s version, Jesus is telling a story, it says, to clear up a misconception about the timing of his setting up the kingdom. I think the simple point he’s making is that justice, unfortunately, may just have to wait ’til he comes again and wraps the whole thing up. It’s not command, a directive or a suggestion to kill anybody. It’s a story told to emphasize a point.
I think it’s a bit of a stretch to interpret this parable (another version of which is found in Matt 25) as a command of Jesus to go out and kill anyone. It’s a bit of a stretch to interpret parables in a strictly literal fashion in general. Jesus was the guy who said very directly, “Love your enemies! Pray for those who persecute you! In that way, you will be acting as true children of your Father in heaven” (Matt 5:44f)
But I can understand why the tone of final judgment and condemnation alluded to here would be troubling. The relationship of justice and judgment might make for a good conversation.
Brian, you can find more of Tim Nyberg’s work on his website Octane Creative. I found his work through The Wittenburg Door, a Christian satire magazine.
There are more posters in this “Jesus Said” collection, so stay tuned…
Helen you raise an interesting point about the parable in Luke chapter 19. There is a similar parable in Matthew chapter 22 concerning a king who gives a wedding banquet for his son. Many refuse to come. Some were too busy, others seize the kings servants and put them to death. The king responds by sending his soldiers to kill the murderers and burn their city.
Luke chapter 20 has a parable about a man planting a vineyard. He leases the vineyard and moves to a distant land. Later he sends servants to see how the vineyard is doing. The servants are beaten and rejected. Then he sends his son. They kill him. Jesus, in this parable, describes how the owner will come and put an end to the tenants who killed the son of the king.
All three parables “appear” to deal with end times and the fate of those who reject the wishes of the king.
It is important to understand what a parable is and the purpose for it. The Greek, ‘parabole’ means ‘to put something alongside something else’. One dictionary states a parable “signifies a placing of one thing beside another with a view to comparison.” (Vine’s Expository Dictionary of N.T. Words) “An earthly story with a heavenly meaning” is a more common definition.
But why did Jesus speak in parables? Even his disciples wanted to know. “And the disciples came and said to Him, “Why do You speak to them in parables?” He answered and said to them, “Because it has been given to you to know the mysteries of the kingdom of heaven, but to them it has not been given. For whoever has, to him more will be given, and he will have abundance; but whoever does not have, even what he has will be taken away from him. Therefore I speak to them in parables, because seeing they do not see, and hearing they do not hear, nor do they understand. (Matthew 13:10-13)
It seems that when understanding parables we need to learn the intended meaning and not jump to the wrong conclusions based on the imagery used. Revelations 3:3 states “Remember therefore how you have received and heard; hold fast and repent. Therefore if you will not watch, I will come upon you as a thief, and you will not know what hour I will come upon you.” I am certain that when Jesus referred to His coming as a “thief” He was not encouraging us to take up the profession of a common crook.
The Old Testament is filled with reports of wars and violent actions sanctioned by God as a means of dealing with the unfaithful. A key theme regarding both the Old Testament and the New Testaments is faithfulness in doing what God asks of us.
What Jesus asks of us is very clear. Turn the other cheek (Matthew 5:39). Love our enemies (Matthew 5:44, Luke 6:27). Do good to those who hate us (Luke 6:27). Bless those who curse us (Luke 6:28). Jesus also teaches us that if we only love those who love us we are doing no more than the unrighteous (Matthew 5:44-45). These are just a few of the many passages that have a common theme of Jesus instructing his followers to be non-violent.
The three parables mentioned deal not with an instruction for current believers to kill enemies and burn cities.Rather they appear point to what will happen when the king returns (end times) and finds an unfaithful people.
The three parables instruct faithfulness even when the king is away. And to be fearful when he returns if we haven’t been. I do not find anything in them that is inconsistent with what Jesus taught.
Seven times in the New Testament is the phrase “weeping and gnashing of teeth” referred to. (Matthew has 6, Luke 1) Consider two that are in Matthew: “The Son of man shall send forth his angels, and they shall gather out of his kingdom all things that offend, and them which do iniquity; And shall cast them into a furnace of fire: there shall be wailing and gnashing of teeth” (Matthew 13:41-42).
“So shall it be at the end of the world: the angels shall come forth, and sever the wicked from among the just, And shall cast them into the furnace of fire: there shall be wailing and gnashing of teeth” (Matthew 13:49-50).
These two passages seem to have some relevance to the hostile punishment found in the three parables in question. I cannot find any place where the fate of those not faithful is a bed of roses. No where can I find in the Old or the New Testaments where God states that the road to Heaven is wide and all that are on it are going to enter in. Just the opposite.
How we are to live our lives on this earth and how God handles the Judgment Day are two separate issues.
Consider the situation with the adulterous woman in John 8:1-12. “But Jesus went to the Mount of Olives. Now early in the morning He came again into the temple, and all the people came to Him; and He sat down and taught them. Then the scribes and Pharisees brought to Him a woman caught in adultery. And when they had set her in the midst, they said to Him, “Teacher, this woman was caught in adultery, in the very act. Now Moses, in the law, commanded us that such should be stoned. But what do You say?” This they said, testing Him, that they might have something of which to accuse Him. But Jesus stooped down and wrote on the ground with His finger, as though He did not hear. So when they continued asking Him, He raised Himself up and said to them, “He who is without sin among you, let him throw a stone at her first.” And again He stooped down and wrote on the ground. Then those who heard it, being convicted by their conscience, went out one by one, beginning with the oldest even to the last. And Jesus was left alone, and the woman standing in the midst. When Jesus had raised Himself up and saw no one but the woman, He said to her, “Woman, where are those accusers of yours? Has no one condemned you?” She said, “No one, Lord.” And Jesus said to her, “Neither do I condemn you; go and sin no more.” Then Jesus spoke to them again, saying, “I am the light of the world. He who follows Me shall not walk in darkness, but have the light of life.”
According the Mosaic Law adultery was a death penalty offense. The scribes and the Pharisees asked Jesus about the fate of this woman to test him so “that they might have something of which to accuse Him” What was the test? What did they hope to get from His response so that they could accuse Him? The only logical explanation is that they knew Jesus, from his teachings, would not condemn this woman to the fate of death by stoning. And if He did not condemn her they would claim He was against the teachings of Moses.
Jesus reply of “He who is without sin among you, let him throw a stone at her first” thwarted their plan. There was only one person, based on Jesus’ statement, who could rightly condemn her to death and that was Jesus.
Concerning the current question I would suggest the one of us who is without sin and has no need of forgiveness can be the first one to ignore Jesus’ teachings about loving our enemies and forgiveness.
Jesus words are sometimes difficult to accept into the heart. He tells us to love our enemies, to bless those who curse us, to turn the other cheek and to go the extra mile. And he tells us to forgive and then forgive some more. “Judge not, and you shall not be judged. Condemn not, and you shall not be condemned. Forgive, and you will be forgiven.” Luke 6:37:
Jesus went to the cross for us, His enemies. And he asks us to be willing to do the same. The question I believe we should ask is can we be faithful?
And even more interesting, I wonder what Brian Mclaren or George Macdonald would have to say. (these are two of the people near the top of the shortish list entitled “people who are able to make christianity seem palatable to Benjamin”)
Benjamin and Helen, Brian McLaren is on my short list too. At the 2005 OTM conference I got the chance to meet Brian and when I went up to talk to him, I got all choked up and I told him that he has helped to save my faith. McLaren, Jim Wallis, Tony Campolo and Ron Sider - I’m not sure where I would have ended up without those guys.
Hmmmm…noticing that my short list is a bunch of middle-aged white men…oh well. I can still call myself a feminist and a progressive, right?
Comment by: Helen
1 03/26/07 11:56 AM | Comment Link |I like it.
Actually - I hope it’s ok to bring this up - I’ve heard people who aren’t Christians argue that Jesus did say that very thing by way of a parable. In Matthew’s gospel there’s a parable which ends with the king - who represents Jesus? - saying this:
“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.” (Matt 19:27)
Comment by: Benjamin Ady
2 03/26/07 12:45 PM | Comment Link |Helen, I have that as Luke 19:26.
Comment by: Benjamin Ady
3 03/26/07 1:17 PM | Comment Link |Helen,
Funnily enough my immediate response to your comment was a desire to defend Jesus.
It should be noted that … he didn’t say “kill your enemies”, but rather, “killy my enemies”.
Doesn’t one have to set this story against Jesus constant refusal to kill or participate in the killing of his enemies?
Still, you are right. It’s brutal. So much for simple answers. I still think it’s a fairly crappy idea to kill your enemies, whatever Jesus said. but that’s just me.
I wonder what Todd Hunter would have to say about this. And even more interesting, I wonder what Brian Mclaren or George Macdonald would have to say. (these are two of the people near the top of the shortish list entitled “people who are able to make christianity seem palatable to Benjamin”)
Comment by: Bruce
4 03/26/07 4:44 PM | Comment Link |First this is a parable. Parables never make for good systematic theology. With a parable we must always look at the bigger picture. What was Jesus trying to say?
Was Jesus advocating the slaughter, the killing of others? I don’t think so, as that would be contrary to virtually everything else Jesus taught. When confronted with a verse that “might” not fit the consensus, we don’t toss aside the consensus. Instead, we recognize the verse as a difficult one and look for more understanding.
In the case of this verse, and the verses that surround it, it seems that judgment is the focus. For those who refuse to follow after Jesus there awaits judgment. Let’s not forget that God is the judge, not us. It is God who will finally judge all people and all things.
Bruce
Comment by: Brianmpei
5 03/26/07 5:32 PM | Comment Link |In Luke’s version, Jesus is telling a story, it says, to clear up a misconception about the timing of his setting up the kingdom. I think the simple point he’s making is that justice, unfortunately, may just have to wait ’til he comes again and wraps the whole thing up. It’s not command, a directive or a suggestion to kill anybody. It’s a story told to emphasize a point.
Love the picture! Where can I get the poster?
Now didn’t he say something about graven images…
Comment by: Karlene
6 03/26/07 7:45 PM | Comment Link |I think it’s a bit of a stretch to interpret this parable (another version of which is found in Matt 25) as a command of Jesus to go out and kill anyone. It’s a bit of a stretch to interpret parables in a strictly literal fashion in general. Jesus was the guy who said very directly, “Love your enemies! Pray for those who persecute you! In that way, you will be acting as true children of your Father in heaven” (Matt 5:44f)
But I can understand why the tone of final judgment and condemnation alluded to here would be troubling. The relationship of justice and judgment might make for a good conversation.
Comment by: Rachel
7 03/26/07 8:09 PM | Comment Link |Brian, you can find more of Tim Nyberg’s work on his website Octane Creative. I found his work through The Wittenburg Door, a Christian satire magazine.
There are more posters in this “Jesus Said” collection, so stay tuned…
Comment by: Helen
8 03/26/07 8:32 PM | Comment Link |Benjamin, yes, you’re right - that verse is actually from Luke.
I agree it doesn’t match the other things Jesus said.
I have a list similar to yours; NT Wright is near the top of mine as well as the two guys you mentioned.
Comment by: John Lamoreau
9 03/26/07 9:43 PM | Comment Link |Helen you raise an interesting point about the parable in Luke chapter 19. There is a similar parable in Matthew chapter 22 concerning a king who gives a wedding banquet for his son. Many refuse to come. Some were too busy, others seize the kings servants and put them to death. The king responds by sending his soldiers to kill the murderers and burn their city.
Luke chapter 20 has a parable about a man planting a vineyard. He leases the vineyard and moves to a distant land. Later he sends servants to see how the vineyard is doing. The servants are beaten and rejected. Then he sends his son. They kill him. Jesus, in this parable, describes how the owner will come and put an end to the tenants who killed the son of the king.
All three parables “appear” to deal with end times and the fate of those who reject the wishes of the king.
It is important to understand what a parable is and the purpose for it. The Greek, ‘parabole’ means ‘to put something alongside something else’. One dictionary states a parable “signifies a placing of one thing beside another with a view to comparison.” (Vine’s Expository Dictionary of N.T. Words) “An earthly story with a heavenly meaning” is a more common definition.
But why did Jesus speak in parables? Even his disciples wanted to know. “And the disciples came and said to Him, “Why do You speak to them in parables?” He answered and said to them, “Because it has been given to you to know the mysteries of the kingdom of heaven, but to them it has not been given. For whoever has, to him more will be given, and he will have abundance; but whoever does not have, even what he has will be taken away from him. Therefore I speak to them in parables, because seeing they do not see, and hearing they do not hear, nor do they understand. (Matthew 13:10-13)
It seems that when understanding parables we need to learn the intended meaning and not jump to the wrong conclusions based on the imagery used. Revelations 3:3 states “Remember therefore how you have received and heard; hold fast and repent. Therefore if you will not watch, I will come upon you as a thief, and you will not know what hour I will come upon you.” I am certain that when Jesus referred to His coming as a “thief” He was not encouraging us to take up the profession of a common crook.
The Old Testament is filled with reports of wars and violent actions sanctioned by God as a means of dealing with the unfaithful. A key theme regarding both the Old Testament and the New Testaments is faithfulness in doing what God asks of us.
What Jesus asks of us is very clear. Turn the other cheek (Matthew 5:39). Love our enemies (Matthew 5:44, Luke 6:27). Do good to those who hate us (Luke 6:27). Bless those who curse us (Luke 6:28). Jesus also teaches us that if we only love those who love us we are doing no more than the unrighteous (Matthew 5:44-45). These are just a few of the many passages that have a common theme of Jesus instructing his followers to be non-violent.
The three parables mentioned deal not with an instruction for current believers to kill enemies and burn cities. Rather they appear point to what will happen when the king returns (end times) and finds an unfaithful people.
The three parables instruct faithfulness even when the king is away. And to be fearful when he returns if we haven’t been. I do not find anything in them that is inconsistent with what Jesus taught.
Seven times in the New Testament is the phrase “weeping and gnashing of teeth” referred to. (Matthew has 6, Luke 1) Consider two that are in Matthew: “The Son of man shall send forth his angels, and they shall gather out of his kingdom all things that offend, and them which do iniquity; And shall cast them into a furnace of fire: there shall be wailing and gnashing of teeth” (Matthew 13:41-42).
“So shall it be at the end of the world: the angels shall come forth, and sever the wicked from among the just, And shall cast them into the furnace of fire: there shall be wailing and gnashing of teeth” (Matthew 13:49-50).
These two passages seem to have some relevance to the hostile punishment found in the three parables in question. I cannot find any place where the fate of those not faithful is a bed of roses. No where can I find in the Old or the New Testaments where God states that the road to Heaven is wide and all that are on it are going to enter in. Just the opposite.
How we are to live our lives on this earth and how God handles the Judgment Day are two separate issues.
Consider the situation with the adulterous woman in John 8:1-12. “But Jesus went to the Mount of Olives. Now early in the morning He came again into the temple, and all the people came to Him; and He sat down and taught them. Then the scribes and Pharisees brought to Him a woman caught in adultery. And when they had set her in the midst, they said to Him, “Teacher, this woman was caught in adultery, in the very act. Now Moses, in the law, commanded us that such should be stoned. But what do You say?” This they said, testing Him, that they might have something of which to accuse Him. But Jesus stooped down and wrote on the ground with His finger, as though He did not hear. So when they continued asking Him, He raised Himself up and said to them, “He who is without sin among you, let him throw a stone at her first.” And again He stooped down and wrote on the ground. Then those who heard it, being convicted by their conscience, went out one by one, beginning with the oldest even to the last. And Jesus was left alone, and the woman standing in the midst. When Jesus had raised Himself up and saw no one but the woman, He said to her, “Woman, where are those accusers of yours? Has no one condemned you?” She said, “No one, Lord.” And Jesus said to her, “Neither do I condemn you; go and sin no more.” Then Jesus spoke to them again, saying, “I am the light of the world. He who follows Me shall not walk in darkness, but have the light of life.”
According the Mosaic Law adultery was a death penalty offense. The scribes and the Pharisees asked Jesus about the fate of this woman to test him so “that they might have something of which to accuse Him” What was the test? What did they hope to get from His response so that they could accuse Him? The only logical explanation is that they knew Jesus, from his teachings, would not condemn this woman to the fate of death by stoning. And if He did not condemn her they would claim He was against the teachings of Moses.
Jesus reply of “He who is without sin among you, let him throw a stone at her first” thwarted their plan. There was only one person, based on Jesus’ statement, who could rightly condemn her to death and that was Jesus.
Concerning the current question I would suggest the one of us who is without sin and has no need of forgiveness can be the first one to ignore Jesus’ teachings about loving our enemies and forgiveness.
Jesus words are sometimes difficult to accept into the heart. He tells us to love our enemies, to bless those who curse us, to turn the other cheek and to go the extra mile. And he tells us to forgive and then forgive some more. “Judge not, and you shall not be judged. Condemn not, and you shall not be condemned. Forgive, and you will be forgiven.” Luke 6:37:
Jesus went to the cross for us, His enemies. And he asks us to be willing to do the same. The question I believe we should ask is can we be faithful?
Comment by: Rachel
10 03/28/07 9:03 AM | Comment Link |Benjamin and Helen, Brian McLaren is on my short list too. At the 2005 OTM conference I got the chance to meet Brian and when I went up to talk to him, I got all choked up and I told him that he has helped to save my faith. McLaren, Jim Wallis, Tony Campolo and Ron Sider - I’m not sure where I would have ended up without those guys.
Hmmmm…noticing that my short list is a bunch of middle-aged white men…oh well. I can still call myself a feminist and a progressive, right?