Board index ‹ Specific Bible verses, texts, and passages ‹ Luke

[Simpleton]

I'm confused about Luke 9:50 & Luke 11:23. Who is the enemy and who is the friend?

So many good explanations on this sub, I'm hoping you all can help me out. I got inspired to pick up my Bible again a couple months ago after too long gathering dust, and I started with Luke. I noticed something, and I'm not sure which is right?

In Luke 9:50, it says, "whoever is not against you is for you". I think this means that you give benefit of the doubt to people, and if they're not actually working against you, then we should consider them on our side.

But Luke 11:23, it says, "whoever is isn't with me is against me". This seems to be the opposite. Unless you're walking on the straight and narrow, and really on fire, you're against Jesus.

Are these saying 2 different things, or the same thing 2 different ways? If different things, how do they relate?

Also, who is this talking about? I see a lot of Christians who aren't against Jesus, but aren't really for Jesus either. Where do they fall? Or is this talking about getting along with those who aren't Christians?

Thanks!

[jimwalton]

Aphorisms depend on context. I've heard "Fools rush in!" to show me how stupid I was to jump right into a situation, and also "He who hesitates is lost!," showing me how stupid I was not to jump right into a situation. Should I wait or jump? It depends on the wisdom of the moment.

These Luke texts are no different. They are contingent on the situation. The point in both cases is that where no neutrality is possible, one must be on one side or the other. They are two different ways of expressing the same thought.

[Simpleton]

> Aphorisms

New word. Nice. Kinda like how the 'nail that stands out' can get noticed or get hammered down.

So Jesus isn't teaching a principle about who Christians can/can't partner with, and more using a cliche - aphorism - that happened to get recorded?

[jimwalton]

> Kinda like how the 'nail that stands out' can get noticed or get hammered down.

Sort-a like "The squeaky wheel gets the grease" and "The squeaky wheel is the first one to be replaced."

> So Jesus isn't teaching a principle about who Christians can/can't partner with

Well, He sort-a is, but not really. In Luke 9.50, the guy was doing a good thing, and the disciples tried to stop his because he wasn't overtly partnered with them. Jesus was saying it was just partisan pride that motivated them to try to shut the guy down. This isn't a matter of "in" group or "out" group, whether the 12 and others, Jews or Gentiles, slave or free, male or female, Baptist or Episcopalians, or just us vs. them. Like, stop it. If the person is doing the work of God, who cares what his label is. Partner with him.

In Luke 11.23, the context shows us that Jesus is using images of warfare and conflict. He's being attacked (by false accusations), and His point is that a battlefield shows which side you're on. If you remember the King Kong movie from 2005, where Naomi Watts finds herself standing between the T-Rex and Kong, she finds it wise to take a side, and so she goes over to Kong.

Jesus is asking the people to identify their side (who they are going to partner with). He is saying to them, "Partner with me, not against me. If you don't partner with me, you are the enemy."

And, just for the record, a cliche and an aphorism are different things, though aphorisms can be used in a cliched manner.