Again, you’re taking it too literally. It is a metaphor for how Christians are supposed to behave and how/why they will be rewarded.
You don’t take the earth being created in seven days or the Garden of Eden literally, correct? Why would you insist on a literal interpretation of a parable?
I’m not struggling with anything, nor do I give a shit about any “broader implications.” I’m an atheist. Any perceived theological "implications’ of the story have no more significance to me than stories about Hanuman the Hindu Monkey God. I just think the interpretation of the King as Jesus is a mistaken one, although it’s original meaning is still pretty obscure.
Because the parable comes from Q, and is independently attested in Thomas, it’s likely to be authentic to Jesus, but the interpretation of Jesus as “king” is an anachronistic one relative to Jesus.
It could be that Jesus was only talking about God, or that (in line with Bart Ehrman’s thinking), he saw the Messiah/“Son of God” as an entity separate from himself who was yet to come down. If that’s the case, then it still seems strange for Jesus to call either God or the Messiah (separate entities in Judaism) out as a prick.
Either the king wasn’t supposed to be either God or the Messiah, or Jesus was calling one or both of them an asshole. I don’t know exactly, but neither does anyone else, and it’s simply inaccurate to say that the meaning is clear.
What’s the symbolic interpretation for the king ordering his slaves to massacre people?
It merely reinforces what was said before. Get off your ass and follow the Word of God. Is it the most subtle of messages? No. But parables are designed to hit you over the head. What you’re having trouble with, I’m not sure.
IIRC, the use of the king in the story is supposed to echo a (supposedly) true event in history, unfortunately, I don’t have time to google. In essence, whoever wrote the parable was saying “Remember what that king did back in the day? Well, that will happen to you if you don’t follow the Word of God.” It’s a scare tactic…parents do it to their children all the time.
The symbolic meaning of the King ordering his enemies killed is that God will send the wicked to eternal torment in the afterlife.
If you think the notion of Hell is barbaric and a God that would send people to Hell is a God unworthy of worship, well, that’s fine. But as Captain Amazing points out, you’re not the intended audience for the parable.
Well not the wicked, just the people that don’t worship him.
Same thing, though.
But the king is ordering his slaves to do the killing. That can’t be handwaved away.
ETA a distinction has to be drawn between the original intent behinbd the parable, and the author of Luke’s (and Matthew’s) interpretation of it.
A *symbolic *crusade ?
(sorry. Too easy to pass)
Kings don’t personally get out their swords and hack off the heads of their enemies. They have people to do that for them.
And God orders his angels to cast the unbelievers into the pit. Same thing.
Sorry if that doesn’t map 100% onto how you think God should smite unbelievers, but I imagine that 1st Century Judeans would think differently.
It’s clear that in the context of this parable, that if God is the king, then the slaves are the faithful. If the king is God, then God is ordering the faithful to kill the infidels. Theres no way around that.
It also doesn’t matter how I think God should do anything. In the context of the parable, the king orders his slaves to kill anyone who refuses to accept him as king. No angels are involved. This point cannot just be handwaved away because Christians don’t like it.
Yes, in the parable the King orders his slaves to kill those who refuse to accept him as king. Just like God will destroy those who refuse to accept God. It’s a pretty simple story. All throughout the Bible God smites innumerable sinners, so the notion of God handing out divine punishment for trivial offenses shouldn’t be a foreign concept.
If you think I’m handwaving away your interpretation because I’m a Christian, well, I guess you aren’t paying attention.
Just as God will order his SERVANTS to do. That aspect cannot just be excised out.
You weren’t one of the Christians I was talking about. I don’t even think you are a Christian, are you?
The claim that it’s being shoehorned has plenty of substance, thank you very much. The meaning of “shoehorned” implies that something doesn’t fit right within a given shape. I have sat in Bible studies myself and seen people arguing over its meaning and trying to fan wank it into their belief system. The point is, it doesn’t have consistency with some brands of the Christian ethos. The parable doesn’t fit within certain belief systems.* Yet within these same systems of Christian thought, people are asked to apply these outdated stories to their lives. The result is that people are getting spiritual blisters and bunions over these stupid parables. Do you deny that there are people who call themselves Christian who nevertheless experience conflict and confusion over these stories?
*Mine was a Lutheran congregation, btw. Not really that far out.
Dio, I’m confused about your protests.
The parable, presuming the obvious interpretation, says this about reality:
My question to you is, what part of this surprises you? I thought it was commonly believed that Jesus was going to literally come back (and soon!), and literally take over, to become a literal king, who was going to literally whoop ass on the Romans and the like in doing so. He has no equals, all are his servants/slaves and only get rewarded if they kiss ass. All that.
Okay, so the “King god” seems a little undemocratic and authoritarian nowadays. So what? The God of the bible was a king god. That’s what he was. He wasn’t elected, that’s for sure. If you don’t like that, well, don’t be Christian. But equally don’t be surprised if he smites you when he (finally, belatedly) comes rolling back into town flinging thunder and destruction before him.
I don’t like 5 and 6 as demonstrated in the parable. Given that in the parable AFAIKT Jesus/King is results oriented.
I really don’t like the idea of God as Donald Trump. If thats the case, many of us are screwed me thinks.
Welcome to the Bible! You’re not supposed to like it. It supposed to be The Truth - the instruction manual about what is and what you have to do to avoid being the bug on the windshield. Which happens to be “play by God’s rules or be the bug”.
Oh yeah - and many of us ARE screwed, according to it. Cheers! 
Except in the parable he DOESNT tell you how to multiply your minas. He just wants more minas. Trying to get more minas aint enough apparently. Nor is even just not loosing minas for that matter.
So, without instructions on HOW…how are you sure your doing enough…or even fricking doing it right…or even better than me for that matter ?
I don’t believe that Jesus could have intended himself as the king. That’s anachronistic.
There’s the whole rest of the book for that, remember. You canna expect one little parable to encapsulate the entire instruction manual for how to live well in the shadow of a jealous god.
Why not? Why is it anachronistic? Keeping in mind that it is a parable.