Sean Hellems on Luke 17:19-27
Can someone exegete Luke 19:11-27?
Comments
Barry Kort I suspect the answer lies in appreciating that the parable is about the Kingdom of God, which is not an earthly locale, but a metaphor for a serene frame of mind.
In that context, those who reject the path to serenity are doomed to die the ordinary fate of those who decline to do the work (meaning the intellectual and spiritual work) to achieve the fabled and legendary "Kingdom of God."
Note, by the way, that in the context of the Old and New Testament, the Deity of the Old Testament has a Holy Name that translates into modern English as 'Becoming'.
Similarly, the name "Ye'Hoshua" means "Becoming Is What Saves You."
Like · Reply · Remove Preview · 4h
Write a reply...
George Dunn Don’t we have to say that the king in this parable is both short on compassion and overstocked with resentment and wrath? This parable gives us a fairly accurate illustration of the way of the world.
Barry Kort According to the cited exegesis, the would-be king is Jesus, and the land where he would be crowned is the Kingdom of God.
George Dunn Then Jesus isn’t any different from any other wealthy tyrant. He rewards those who make money for him and slaughters those who protest.
Sean Hellems Barry Kort that exegesis may not be correct. http://girardianlectionary.net/reflections/year-c/proper28c/
Barry Kort If the professional theologians can't agree on how to make sense of Luke, then it undermines the pedagogical value of parables.
Under the exegesis that I found (cited above), the "investment" is in studying and sharing the teachings with others. The reward for study is insight and mastery (of the Kingdom of God). That at least makes sense as an analogy or parable.
Moreover, since it's expressly introduced as a parable, it makes no sense to interpret it literally.
Barry Kort By the way, it's not just the NT parables that sometimes perplex the theologians. There's plenty of material in the OT that the Rabbis argued over in the Talmud.
Sean Hellems "Then Jesus isn’t any different from any other wealthy tyrant. He rewards those who make money for him and slaughters those who protest."
Care to address that as well as the info in the link I posted?
Barry Kort I did address it. It makes sense if you properly map the elements of the parable from the input domain to the output range of the parable. It makes no sense if you take it literally while mapping Jesus to a secular ruler. You have to map all elements consistently.
Sean Hellems Barry Kort I have no idea what you're talking about. This isn't an echo chamber. You're talking to other humans.
Barry Kort Do you understand that a parable is a mapping, like an analogy, between two different spaces? Jesus was a systems thinker, and he regularly uses the tools for thought of a systems thinker, which prominently includes model-based reasoning (e.g. analogies and parables).
Barry Kort In case you are concerned that I am unfamiliar with Girard, here is my essay on his model.
Like · Reply · Remove Preview · 22m
Barry Kort In model-based reasoning, when you have multiple models to be examined, you see whether the predictions of the model agree with observation. One of exegetical interpretations jibes, therefore it is not falsified. One of the exegetical interpretations doesn't jibe, as it generates an inconsistency. Therefore the flawed exegesis is discarded. That's how systems science works. You provisionally keep the model that is consistent with observation and discard any that are inconsistent with observation.
Sean Hellems Barry Kort waiting for your response to the point made earlier as well as the link I shared with you.
Sean Hellems You should be more specific. You're not addressing anything that anyone is saying to you.
Sean Hellems The writers explained why they interpreted the text to refer to earthly rulers and you're acting as if there was no explanation.
Barry Kort 1. You asked for an exegesis. I found one for you.
2. You asked about verse 27. I responded to you by explaining the mapping.
3. George Dunn appealed to another interpretation, in which the parable is taken literally. I pointed out that, by definition, a parable is an analogy in which the mapping must be carefully appreciated.
4. You cited a competing exegesis, which I found inconsistent because the elements were not consistently mapped from the domain space to the range space.
5. You complained that my presentation on the structure of model-based reasoning bore no connection to Girard. I responded by presenting a concise statement of Girard's Model of Contagion.
6. After providing the above responses, you complained that I hadn't responded, as if the responses meant nothing to you.
So let me ask you: Did you get anything at all out of my responses? If so, what did you learn?
Unable to post comment. Try Again