We conclude, from part 1, part 2, part 3, part 4 and part 5, considering arguments which a personage whom we will call the counter-arguer made in attempts to prove that Jesus was violent.
The counter-arguer posed one of the right and logical questions, referred to in part 1, “What exactly did he mean? To not kill them?” However, this was prefaced by the statement, “Since you admit JC was referring to himself in the parable…” which is actually not factual as no such thing was admitted, as we shall see (this was actually just based on a misunderstanding between us).
The parable is not merely one of likening but distinguishing. The man in the parable is not only like Jesus, in only certain ways, but is very much unlike Jesus, in a most important way.
Here is the parable (Luke 19 beginning at v. 11):
While they were listening to these things, Jesus went on to tell a parable, because He was near Jerusalem, and they supposed that the kingdom of God was going to appear immediately.
So He said, “A nobleman went to a distant country to receive a kingdom for himself, and then return. And he called ten of his slaves, and gave them ten minas and said to them, ‘Do business with this until I come back.’
But his citizens hated him and sent a delegation after him, saying, ‘We do not want this man to reign over us.’ When he returned, after receiving the kingdom, he ordered that these slaves, to whom he had given the money, be called to him so that he might know what business they had done. The first appeared, saying, ‘Master, your mina has made ten minas more.’ And he said to him, ‘Well done, good slave, because you have been faithful in a very little thing, you are to be in authority over ten cities.’ The second came, saying, ‘Your mina, master, has made five minas.’ And he said to him also, ‘And you are to be over five cities.’ Another came, saying, ‘Master, here is your mina, which I kept put away in a handkerchief; for I was afraid of you, because you are an exacting man; you take up what you did not lay down and reap what you did not sow.’
He said to him, ‘By your own words I will judge you, you worthless slave. Did you know that I am an exacting man, taking up what I did not lay down and reaping what I did not sow? ‘Then why did you not put my money in the bank, and having come, I would have collected it with interest?’ Then he said to the bystanders, ‘Take the mina away from him and give it to the one who has the ten minas.’ And they said to him, ‘Master, he has ten minas already.’ I tell you that to everyone who has, more shall be given, but from the one who does not have, even what he does have shall be taken away.
But these enemies of mine, who did not want me to reign over them, bring them here and slay them in my presence.
You may recall from part 1 of this series of articles that the counter-arguer interpreted thusly:
A man came from a distant country (Heaven) to have himself appointed king, his subjects rejected him (the Jews including Peter etc,..) he was made king (crucified) and returned home (back to Heaven)?
Is this the case? He believes so and makes this point:
Isn't JC referring to himself in the "parable"?
Look at the verses after the parable entitled - "Jesus Comes to Jerusalem as King"
He is referring to the title placed there by the publishers of the particular version which he is quoting (the NASB, for example, has the title of “Triumphal Entry”). Thus, since the parable is about a man who became king and thereafter Jesus became king, the parable must be about Him. It appears to make sense however…
Some, perhaps a preterist may want to symbolically claim that Jesus is the man made king of the parable and that the killing pertains to the Romans razing Jerusalem in 70 AD. Who knows?
Other may want to apply this to the eschaton—the last days, the end times—and apply it to the battle a Armageddon. Who knows?
But let us go with a much more straight forwards approach. Jesus seems to be dichotomizing, He seems to be drawing a distinction, He appears to be describing a worldly king on the one hand, the man in the parable, and Himself, on the other hand.
In John 18:33 we find that Pontius Pilate asked Jesus, “Are You the King of the Jews?” Jesus stated, “My kingdom is not of this world.” He actually continued that statement with this, “If My kingdom were of this world, then My servants would be fighting so that I would not be handed over to the Jews; but as it is, My kingdom is not of this realm.”
If he was a king like the parabolic man made king then indeed, there would have been a fracas. But such is not the case.
Again, Pilate asked, “So You are a king?” And Jesus answered,
You say correctly that I am a king. For this I have been born, and for this I have come into the world, to testify to the truth. Everyone who is of the truth hears My voice.
So, “Isn't JC referring to himself in the ‘parable’?” It does not seem as though He was. But “What exactly did he mean? To not kill them?” Well, now we must as who “he” is. If the counter-arguer is asking what the “he”—the fictional man made king—in the parable meant: that parabolic man did, indeed, mean to kill them. If the counter-arguer is asking if the “he”—Jesus, the one speaking the parable, the king of a kingdom which is not of this world, which is unlike the kingdom of the fictional parabolic man made king—then He never said any such thing and thus, never commanded any such thing.
Keep in mind that Jesus actually had opportunity to carry out such an action, if this is truly what He intended for Himself and His followers. For example, in Luke 9:52-54 we learn that Jesus:
…sent messengers on ahead, who went into a Samaritan village to get things ready for him; but the people there did not welcome him, because he was heading for Jerusalem.
When the disciples James and John saw this, they asked, “Lord, do you want us to call fire down from heaven to destroy them?”
Surely, Jesus said, “Behold, good and faithful servants, now you’ve got it. Burn'em up, extra crispy!”
No, rather:
But Jesus turned and rebuked them…
What of the high priest’s servant can you hear me now Malchus? When the Temple guard and the Roman soldiers came to arrest Jesus:
Simon Peter then, having a sword, drew it and struck the high priest’s slave, and cut off his right ear; and the slave’s name was Malchus.
Surely, Jesus took this most opportune of opportunities to say, “Oh, it’s on now! It is soooooo on!”
No, rather:
Jesus said to Peter, “Put the sword into the sheath; the cup which the Father has given Me, shall I not drink it?”
And what about when Jesus was literally dying on the cross? Surely, that would be the time to call for His followers to attack. No, rather, Jesus said:
Father, forgive them, for they know not what they do (Luke 23:34).
Since Jesus asked for their forgiveness, any “Christians” who persecute Jews for Jesus’ death, or any reason, are acting in an un-Christian, non-Christian and anti-Christian manner.
Thus, having ample opportunity at every turn (meaning much more than these as He was often besmirched) the only advantage He took in such situations was to advance His message of peace, love and forgiveness.
The violent Jesus is nothing but a malicious myth. It is a myth that accredits the real Jesus and discredits those proposing Him.
How does the score card look? Jesus is said to have been violent because:
1) An anti-Christian Rabbi said so, un-contextually.
Grade: fail.
2) Jesus came to bring a sword.
Grade: fail.
3) “Christians” have been violent in Jesus’ name.
Grade: fail.
4) A scholar merely asserted that Jesus was violent.
Grade: fail.
5) Adolf Hitler claimed that Jesus was violent.
Grade: fail, with flying colors.
6) Jesus’ parable is about Himself and so He wanted His followers to murder in His name.
Grade: fail on various levels.
