Jesus orders a massacre (Luke 19:27)

[Stefan Kristensen]

Question:
Does anyone know of any interpretations of Luke 19:27 by scholars or Christians throughout history interpreting this verse as Jesus ordering his disciples to fetch the unbelievers and massacre them?

'But as for these enemies of mine who did not want me to be king over them—bring them here and slaughter them in my presence.’
(Luke 19:27)

This verse is ever so often touted as an example of Jesus or the New Testament calling for violence or being just as violent as Muhammad and the Quran or something like that.

It comes at the end of the Parable of the Pounds and obviously this verse is rather about the massacre that God/Christ/angels will execute at the time of the parousia, when Christ returns at judgement day. Maybe it's even about the punishment in hell at that time.

Verse 27 is a line spoken by the character within the parable, i.e. the nobleman-turned-king, as is clear from the fact that he speaks about his enemies who "did not want me as a king". The problem is that verse 26 makes it look like that verse 27 is spoken by Luke's Jesus figure and not the nobleman-turned-king within the parable. Because by all means verse 26 is a typical Jesus saying and it is most surprising to find this saying like this within the parable. It is even introduced with the formula "I tell you" which Luke uses 26 times, every time spoken by Jesus, and 14 of those instances to introduce a concluding teaching. So it really, really looks like verse 26 is not part of the parable, which also makes it look like verse 27, calling for a massacre, is also not part of the parable.

Then the other slave came, saying, ‘Lord, here is your pound. I wrapped it up in a piece of cloth,for I was afraid of you, because you are a harsh man; you take what you did not deposit, and reap what you did not sow.’ He said to him, ‘I will judge you by your own words, you wicked slave! You knew, did you, that I was a harsh man, taking what I did not deposit and reaping what I did not sow? Why then did you not put my money into the bank? Then when I returned, I could have collected it with interest.’ He said to the bystanders, ‘Take the pound from him and give it to the one who has ten pounds.’(And they said to him, ‘Lord, he has ten pounds!’) ‘I tell you, to all those who have, more will be given; but from those who have nothing, even what they have will be taken away. But as for these enemies of mine who did not want me to be king over them—bring them here and slaughter them in my presence.’
(Luke 19,20–27 NRSV)

All instances of "I tell you":
Luke 4,24–25; 7,9.26.28; 10,12; 11,8.51; 12,5.22.37.44.51; 13,3.5.24; 15,7.10; 17,34; 18,8.14.17.29; 19,26.40; 21,3.32

The 14 instances where Jesus uses it to introduce his conclusion, with 19:26 as the probable exception:

Luke 7,9 When Jesus heard this he was amazed at him, and turning to the crowd that followed him, he said, “I tell you, not even in Israel have I found such faith.”

Luke 7,28 I tell you, among those born of women no one is greater than John; yet the least in the kingdom of God is greater than he.”

Luke 10,12 I tell you, on that day it will be more tolerable for Sodom than for that town.

Luke 11,8 I tell you, even though he will not get up and give him anything because he is his friend, at least because of his persistence he will get up and give him whatever he needs.

Luke 15,7 Just so, I tell you, there will be more joy in heaven over one sinner who repents than over ninety-nine righteous persons who need no repentance.

Luke 15,10 Just so, I tell you, there is joy in the presence of the angels of God over one sinner who repents.”

Luke 18,8 I tell you, he will quickly grant justice to them. And yet, when the Son of Man comes, will he find faith on earth?”

Luke 18,14 I tell you, this man went down to his home justified rather than the other; for all who exalt themselves will be humbled, but all who humble themselves will be exalted.”

Luke 18,17 Truly I tell you, whoever does not receive the kingdom of God as a little child will never enter it.”

Luke 18,29-30 And he said to them, “Truly I tell you, there is no one who has left house or wife or brothers or parents or children, for the sake of the kingdom of God, who will not get back very much more in this age, and in the age to come eternal life.”

Luke 19,26 ‘I tell you, to all those who have, more will be given; but from those who have nothing, even what they have will be taken away.'

Luke 19,40 He answered, “I tell you, if these were silent, the stones would shout out.”

Luke 21,3-4 He said, “Truly I tell you, this poor widow has put in more than all of them; for all of them have contributed out of their abundance, but she out of her poverty has put in all she had to live on.”

Luke 21,32-3 Truly I tell you, this generation will not pass away until all things have taken place. Heaven and earth will pass away, but my words will not pass away.

So it could mistakenly look like Jesus finishes his parable with 19:25, and then concludes in 26-27 that the disciples should now go on and massacre the unbelievers.

[Charles Wilson]

1. I very much appreciate the identifiers. Something to spend another 6 months examining...

2. The main point of this collection is that these come from text(s) that came before "Jesus". They were rewritten and Transvalued.

Luke 7: 9: A very cynical Herod story. Rome tells Herod to jump and Herod starts jumping.

Luke 7: 28: This is from the 4 BCE Passover. The least in the Kingdom of God made it through the "Narrow Door" by "...turning as a child". John did not and was murdered.

Luke 10: 12: More misdirection. Before the Coup against Herod, who died a week too soon, the backers of the Coup canvass the supporters around the Temple, gauging support for continuing against Archelaus.

Luke 11:8: Another amazing Herod story, centered around the building of the Safe Harbor at Caesarea. In the middle of a very severe famine, Herod opens the harbor, hocking everything of value to pay Petronius for grain. He presumably gives away grain to all especially the needy but uses this for self-aggrandizement.

Luke 15 and 18 to v 14: Later.

Luke 18: 17: Some indirection here. In the original, Peter is a child.

Luke 13: 23 - 24 (RSV):

[23] And some one said to him, "Lord, will those who are saved be few?" And he said to them,
[24] "Strive to enter by the narrow door; for many, I tell you, will seek to enter and will not be able.

So now we get to Luke 18: 17 and notice the very slight swerve in meaning:

[16] But Jesus called them to him, saying, "Let the children come to me, and do not hinder them; for to such belongs the kingdom of God.
[17] Truly, I say to you, whoever does not receive the kingdom of God like a child shall not enter it."

The small child who can enter through the narrow door and turn as a child to get into the "Realm of Heaven" will live. Peter takes the Priest who should be dead ("They shrieked as if they had seen a ghost...") and gets him into the Realm of Heaven. John either could not or would not get into the Realm of Heaven and he died.

I have to leave this here for a bit. I close, however with one of the ***Important*** short passages in Luke:

Luke 19: 39 - 40 (RSV):

[39] And some of the Pharisees in the multitude said to him, "Teacher, rebuke your disciples."
[40] He answered, "I tell you, if these were silent, the very stones would cry out."

Josephus, W..., 2, 1, 3:

"Accordingly, he [Archelaus] made trial to quiet the innovators by persuasion, rather than by force, and sent his general in a private way to them, and by him exhorted them to be quiet. But the seditious threw stones at him, and drove him away, as he came into the temple, and before he could say any thing to them. The like treatment they showed to others, who came to them after him, many of which were sent by Archelaus, in order to reduce them to sobriety, and these answered still on all occasions after a passionate manner; and it openly appeared that they would not be quiet, if their numbers were but considerable..."
***

Very important Post, Stefan!

3. Attention Ben: Does any of THIS make sense to you?!??

CW

Edit Note: The massacre ordered by "Jesus" goes back to Alexander Jannaeus. For most of my "Assertions" here, see previous Posts. It is a consistent story featuring the Hasmoneans (Hi Maryhelena!), the Mishmarot Priesthood, esp. Immer and Bilgah and a particular Priest and a small child named Peter, who comes back to Jerusalem 12 years after nearly being killed. His Priest friend wasn't so lucky and I'm so sure of Peter either.

[Ben C. Smith]

Question:
Does anyone know of any interpretations of Luke 19:27 by scholars or Christians throughout history interpreting this verse as Jesus ordering his disciples to fetch the unbelievers and massacre them?

'But as for these enemies of mine who did not want me to be king over them—bring them here and slaughter them in my presence.’
(Luke 19:27)

I do not at present, no. But here are some Christian comments on this verse:

From Origen, Commentary on Matthew 14.13: And let them also attend to this: "So therefore also shall My heavenly Father do unto you,", and to the same persons also might rather be said the things in the parable of the ten pounds that the Son of the good God said, "Howbeit these mine enemies which would not that I should reign over them." The conclusion of the parable, however, is adapted also to the simpler; for all of us who have obtained the forgiveness of our own sins, and have not forgiven our brethren, are taught at once that we shall suffer the lot of him who was forgiven but did not forgive his fellow servant. [Link: http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/101614.htm. A search for "ten pounds" on this page will reveal other parts of the parable which Origen discusses.]

John Chrysostom, Homilies on John 53.2a, on John 8.28-29: 2a "When you have lifted up the Son of Man, then you shall know that I Am, and that I speak not of Myself, and that He that sent Me is with Me. And the Father has not left Me alone." He shows that He rightly said, "The same that I said to you from the beginning." So little heed they gave to His words: "When you have lifted up the Son of Man. Do ye not expect that you then shall certainly rid yourselves of Me, and slay Me? But I tell you that then you shall most know that I Am, by reason of the miracles, the resurrection, and the destruction (of Jerusalem)." For all these things were sufficient to manifest His power. He said not, "Then you shall know who I am," for, "when you shall see," He says, "that I suffer nothing from death, then you shall know that I Am, that is, the Christ, the Son of God, who govern all things, and am not opposed to Him." For which cause He adds, "And of Myself I speak nothing. For you shall know both My power and My unanimity with the Father." Because "of Myself I speak nothing" shows that His Substance differs not (from that of the Father), and that He utters nothing save that which is in the mind of the Father. "For when you have been driven away from your place of worship, and it is not allowed you even to serve Him as hitherto, then you shall know that He does this to avenge Me, and because He is angry with those who would not hear Me." As though He had said, "Had I been an enemy and a stranger to God, He would not have stirred up such wrath against you." This also Isaiah declares: "He shall give the wicked in return for His burial" [Isaiah 53.9 LXX]; and David: "Then shall He speak unto them in His wrath" [Psalm 2.5]; and Christ Himself, "Behold, your house is left unto you desolate" [Matthew 23.38]. And His parables declare the same thing when He says, "What shall the Lord of that vineyard do to those husbandmen? He shall miserably destroy those wicked men" [Matthew 21.40-41]. Do you see that everywhere He speaks thus, because He is not yet believed? But if He will destroy them, as He will, (for it says, "Bring hither those which would not that I should reign over them, and slay them") wherefore says He that the deed is not His, but His Father's? He addresses Himself to their weakness, and at the same time honors Him that begot Him. Wherefore He said not, "I leave your house desolate," but rather, "it is left." He has put it impersonally. But by saying, "How often would I have gathered your children together, and you would not," and then adding, "It is left," He shows that He wrought the desolation. "For since," He tells them, "when you were benefited and healed of your infirmities, you would not know Me, you shall know by being punished who I am." [Link: http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/240153.htm.]

Both Origen and Chrysostom seem to recognize the eschatological nature of the saying.

The Marcionite version can be viewed here: viewtopic.php?f=3&t=1765&start=20#p39327.

It comes at the end of the Parable of the Pounds and obviously this verse is rather about the massacre that God/Christ/angels will execute at the time of the parousia, when Christ returns at judgement day. Maybe it's even about the punishment in hell at that time.

Agreed.

Verse 27 is a line spoken by the character within the parable, i.e. the nobleman-turned-king, as is clear from the fact that he speaks about his enemies who "did not want me as a king". The problem is that verse 26 makes it look like that verse 27 is spoken by Luke's Jesus figure and not the nobleman-turned-king within the parable.

I take this as a sign that the parable has been edited into its present state in Luke.

So it could mistakenly look like Jesus finishes his parable with 19:25, and then concludes in 26-27 that the disciples should now go on and massacre the unbelievers.

It could. The editing is rough.

To my eye, the best argument that verse 27 does not belong to the original parable is a combination of observations that (A) Matthew's parable lacks it, as well as anything else to do with the Archelaus motif; (B) none of the Archelaus stuff is attested for the Marcionite version, either; (C) none of the Archelaus stuff is attested for the (admittedly sparsely described) parable from the Hebraic gospel, either; and (D) the Archelaus stuff feels more at home in historically minded Luke-Acts than anywhere else.

I have a rather long discussion of the three versions of this parable (Matthew's talents, Luke's pounds, and another version from a Jewish-Christian gospel) here: viewtopic.php?f=3&t=2159.

[DCHindley]

While I have heard it said that this is a story of Archelaeus going to Rome to receive his kingdom, in which there was a revolt which was suppressed by the Romans before he returned. The problem is that there is no account of Archelaeus exerting severe vengeance against those who revolted.

Personally, I think the situation described better fits the circumstances of Alexander Jannaeus (104-78 BCE):

By his love of war Alexander was soon again involved in further complications.

He went forth against the Arab tribes which dwelt east of the Jordan, and of these he made the Moabites and Gileadites tributary. But Amathus, which had once previously been conquered but never very securely held, was now utterly destroyed.

He then began hostilities against the Arabian king; Obedas; but during the conflict with him in the neighbourhood of Gadara, Alexander fell into an ambuscade, in which he was so sore pressed that he narrowly escaped with his bare life.

He went as a fugitive to Jerusalem. But there a poor reception awaited him. The Pharisees took advantage of the moment of Alexander's political weakness to break down his power and influence at home. There was a general rebellion against him, and Alexander had for six full years to fight against his own people with mercenary troops. No less than 50,000 Jews are said to have perished during this period in these civil conflicts.

When Alexander's power had been established he held out the hand of peace. But the Pharisees wished to turn the state of affairs to account so as to secure a victory to their party. When therefore Alexander inquired what they wanted from him, and under what conditions they would [302] agree to maintain the peace and yield obedience, they said that they wanted only his death.

At the same time they called to their aid Demetrius III. Eucarus, a son of Antiochns Grypos, and at that time governor of a portion of Syria, — somewhere about B.C. 88.

Demetrius arrived with an army.

The Jewish national party united themselves with him at Shechem.

Alexander was completely beaten, lost all his mercenary troops, and was obliged to flee to the mountains.

But now it seemed as if among many of the Jews who now attached themselves to Demetrius, the national feeling had again wakened up. They would rather, in a free Jewish state, be subject to an Asmonean prince than be incorporated into the empire of a Seleucid ruler.

Six thousand Jews went over to Alexander, and Demetrius was in consequence under the necessity of withdrawing again into his own land.

The rest of the Jews who still continued in revolt had no other object than to get rid of Alexander.

But they were by him defeated in many battles, and many of them were slain.

The leaders of the rebellion at last fled to Bethome or Besemelis, where they were besieged by Alexander. After the overthrow of the city, Alexander carried them as prisoners to Jerusalem,

and there within the city, at least according to the account of Josephus, while he along with his mistresses gave himself [303] up to debauchery, he had somewhere about 800 of the prisoners crucified in his own presence, and while they were yet alive caused their wives and children to be slain before their eyes.

His opponents in Jerusalem were by these atrocities so paralysed with terror, that they fled during the night to the number of 8000, and during his lifetime kept away from the land of Judea.

From this time forward Alexander, throughout his whole reign, enjoyed peace at home.

From The Jewish People in the Time of Jesus Christ (Division i volume i, 2nd ed, 1890)

This is, after all, an illustrative story told to make a point.

DCH

[Ben C. Smith]

Doesn't this better fit the situation of Alexander Jannaeus (104-78 BCE)?

I forget. Did Alexander Jannaeus travel to a far country in order to secure his kingdom (Luke 19.12)?

[Stuart]

Ben,

That is a good write up. I find it interesting that verse 27 seems not to have been in Marcion's version. Certainly Tertullian would have seized upon this as an example of Jesus being judge and destroyer, rather than the good and nice only Jesus the Marcionites profess. But he doesn't.

The other striking thing to me is that, as has been mentioned, it seems to be uttered as a Jesus command and not from the story as the nobleman-prince statement. This indicates it's from outside the original parable and may be a redactional addition. That Matthew also lacks it, but instead places one of his standard outer darkness and gnashing teeth verses (Matthew 25:30), which are always additive, supports the redaction concept.

I do agree it is an eschatological parousia comment in line with the orthodox concept of Jesus as judge. Death and slaying in the Gospels, both early and late, is generally spiritual or rather intended to be understood allegorically as spiritual. But that there are enemies of Christ among his servants (i.e., his disciples and followers) suggests an anti-heretical element in the verse as well. Pretty much all such anti-heretical comments strongly suggest later theological and organizational developments.

Good thread, all comments to this point are good.

[DCHindley]

Doesn't this better fit the situation of Alexander Jannaeus (104-78 BCE)?

I forget. Did Alexander Jannaeus travel to a far country in order to secure his kingdom (Luke 19.12)?

No. I was noting that the part about gathering up enemies to slay them was probably based on the infamy attached to Alexander Jannaeus after he soundly defeated those who rebelled against him. He did not go to a foreign land to receive his kingdom from a more powerful king or figure, but he certainly had his troubles at home and abroad to get to a point of absolute security among his own subjects.*

Jesus' stories like this sometimes seem to contain a hodge-podge of allusions to all sorts of events as told by Josephus, pagan and Christian writers. If he actually said these things, he could have composed them on the fly to make his points, using code words to relate them to the events he is discussing. Considering the dramatic scenes alluded to, it does make me wonder at time what kinds of things were actually under discussion.

DCH

*If a movie were made about him, it should star John Wayne at that stage where he played powerful but tough as nails landowner Jacob McCandles in Big Jake (1971). John Fain: "I thought you were dead." Jake: "Not hardly."

[Ben C. Smith]

Doesn't this better fit the situation of Alexander Jannaeus (104-78 BCE)?

I forget. Did Alexander Jannaeus travel to a far country in order to secure his kingdom (Luke 19.12)?

No. I was noting that the part about gathering up enemies to slay them was probably based on the infamy attached to Alexander Jannaeus after he soundly defeated those who rebelled against him. He did not go to a foreign land to receive his kingdom from a more powerful king or figure, but he certainly had his troubles at home and abroad to get to a point absolute security among his own subjects.*

Jesus' stories like this sometimes seem to contain a hodge-podge of allusions to all sorts of events as told by Josephus, pagan and Christian writers. If he actually said these things, he could have composed them on the fly to make his points, using code words to relate them to the events he is discussing. Considering the dramatic scenes alluded to, it does make me wonder at time what kinds of things were actually under discussion.

Okay, gotcha. Thanks.

[Stefan Kristensen]

Thanks for good replies, guys.

Verse 27 is a line spoken by the character within the parable, i.e. the nobleman-turned-king, as is clear from the fact that he speaks about his enemies who "did not want me as a king". The problem is that verse 26 makes it look like that verse 27 is spoken by Luke's Jesus figure and not the nobleman-turned-king within the parable.

I take this as a sign that the parable has been edited into its present state in Luke.
...
To my eye, the best argument that verse 27 does not belong to the original parable is a combination of observations that (A) Matthew's parable lacks it, as well as anything else to do with the Archelaus motif; (B) none of the Archelaus stuff is attested for the Marcionite version, either; (C) none of the Archelaus stuff is attested for the (admittedly sparsely described) parable from the Hebraic gospel, either; and (D) the Archelaus stuff feels more at home in historically minded Luke-Acts than anywhere else.

I have a rather long discussion of the three versions of this parable (Matthew's talents, Luke's pounds, and another version from a Jewish-Christian gospel) here: viewtopic.php?f=3&t=2159.

I haven't read all the way through your discussion here, but it looks interesting. ATM I think Luke most likely edited it himself from Matthew's text (which I believe was one of his main sources along with gMark and gJohn). The theory that for various reasons makes the most sense to me is the most simple one: Matthew is the one who creates the Parable of the Talents and then comes up with the idea of putting the Mark 4:25 saying, "To those who have, more will be given ...", into this parable (thereby also providing a new context and meaning for the saying). And then Luke builds upon Matthew's text, expanding and adding some elements to the text, and apparently being inspired by the story about Archelaus.

Actually, Matthew's parable of the Talents already contains the same problem as Luke's version, the problem of verse 26, by having the Mark 4:25 Jesus-saying ("To those who have, ...") put into the mouth of a character in a parable instead of Jesus himself. Of course it makes sense that Matthew has this character in the parable utter this Markan Jesus-saying if the character in fact represents Jesus (the future Jesus). But it would still look more natural if Matthew instead had chosen to put the saying in the mouth of Jesus directly as a concluding commentary to his parable, after he had finished telling it.

So what Luke does, then, is to make the Jesus-saying uttered by the character within the parable even more Jesus-like by the formula "I tell you". Also, Luke chooses to change the ending of Matthew's version, so it is not the bad slave who is punished further, but in accordance with Luke's overall thematic and theological agenda it is instead the Jews who are about to reject Jesus as he arrives in Jerusalem that are punished in the parable. It also makes sense that Luke would make this move, because he implements the parable in another context from Matthew, and thereby the explicit judgement day context from Matt 25:31ff is lacking. So perhaps also therefore he changes the punishment from the one slave to the 'Jews', i.e. the custodians of the covenant in Jerusalem (the Jerusalem authorities), to make the judgement day aspect explicit.

'So take the talent from him, and give it to the one with the ten talents.
For to all those who have, more will be given, and they will have an abundance; but from those who have nothing, even what they have will be taken away.
As for this worthless slave, throw him into the outer darkness, where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth.’
(Matthew 25,28–30 NRSV)

The king said to the bystanders, ‘Take the pound from him and give it to the one who has ten pounds.’
(And they said to him, ‘Lord, he has ten pounds!’)
‘I tell you, to all those who have, more will be given; but from those who have nothing, even what they have will be taken away.
But as for these enemies of mine who did not want me to be king over them — bring them here and slaughter them in my presence.’
(Luke 19,24-27 NRSV)

Anyway, it appears that within this parable, both the version in gMatt and gLuke, a regular Jesus saying is inserted ("To the one who has, more will be given ...") and it has a strange feel to it.

[Charles Wilson]

I forget. Did Alexander Jannaeus travel to a far country in order to secure his kingdom (Luke 19.12)?

Yes, he did:

[21] And Jesus went away from there and withdrew to the district of Tyre and Sidon.
[22] And behold, a Canaanite woman from that region came out and cried, "Have mercy on me, O Lord, Son of David; my daughter is severely possessed by a demon."
[23] But he did not answer her a word. And his disciples came and begged him, saying, "Send her away, for she is crying after us."
[24] He answered, "I was sent only to the lost sheep of the house of Israel."

Jannaeus has set his sights on Reunification of Greater Israel. He gets his ass handed to him on a plate by the Greek General Demetrius Eucerus at Shechem, near the Temple of Gerizim. This forces a change in plans and after years of consolidation "in the mountains", he returns to Jerusalem. Greater Israel, however, was the goal.

CW