Lk 12:41-48

  • Thread starter Thread starter ferreus
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
F

ferreus

Guest
Doesn’t Lk 12:41-48 prove purgatory? There are more such passages, but this is the clearest to me so far!
I know I can’t be the first one to spot this, but I haven’t seen it referenced anywhere, so now I have to be a smartass! 👍

So, the first evil servant gets killed an counted as a non faithful. The two other servants are indifferent and ignorant, and they gets whipped in varying degrees.

Is there any loophole I don’t see?
 
ferreus said:
Doesn’t Lk 12:41-48 prove purgatory? There are more such passages, but this is the clearest to me so far!
I know I can’t be the first one to spot this, but I haven’t seen it referenced anywhere, so now I have to be a smartass! 👍

So, the first evil servant gets killed an counted as a non faithful. The two other servants are indifferent and ignorant, and they gets whipped in varying degrees.

Is there any loophole I don’t see?
Click to expand...
Obviously I believe in the existence of purgatory, but I always thought this passage proved the existence of varying degrees of suffering in hell. I could be wrong though.
 
The first servant gets killed, but the others just get finite punishment. The first servant destroys things, the others are just inactive…
 
ferreus said:
The first servant gets killed, but the others just get finite punishment. The first servant destroys things, the others are just inactive…
Click to expand...
Hi ferreus .

I like the observation that the first servant destroys things while the others tend towards inactivity/sloth , but I couldn’t find any translation of Luke 12: 41-48 saying that one of the servants gets killed…only that he will be beaten with more stripes -

; “… shall be beaten severely.” [NAB] ; “…shall be beaten with many stripes.” [KJV] and [DRV], "…will be given a great many strokes of the lash. [NJB]

Is it possible I’m missing a translation somewhere, or that maybe you have confused Luke 12: 41-48 with Luke 19:27 ?
 
I’ve checked two swedish (yeah :/) translations, they say in 12:46 (about the lord and the first servant):
“…He shall strike him down and let him share fate with the faithless.” and
“…He shall cut him to pieces and give him his place among the faithless.”
 
NeedImprovement said:
Hi ferreus .

I like the observation that the first servant destroys things while the others tend towards inactivity/sloth , but I couldn’t find any translation of Luke 12: 41-48 saying that one of the servants gets killed…only that he will be beaten with more stripes -

; “… shall be beaten severely.” [NAB] ; “…shall be beaten with many stripes.” [KJV] and [DRV], "…will be given a great many strokes of the lash. [NJB]

Is it possible I’m missing a translation somewhere, or that maybe you have confused Luke 12: 41-48 with Luke 19:27 ?
Click to expand...
LK 12:46
RSV-2CE “…and will punish* him…”
*Or cut him in pieces.
GNT/TEV also uses “cut him in pieces”
 
Thanks for the replies.

I guess we should pray that we all have faith then.

I’ve never come across any english translations which state it quite that way (I have one or two more obscure Catholic Bibles buried under other books somewhere in the basement - I’ll have a look at them and if I come up with anything, I’ll post it)

🙂
 
ferreus said:
Doesn’t Lk 12:41-48 prove purgatory? There are more such passages, but this is the clearest to me so far!
I know I can’t be the first one to spot this, but I haven’t seen it referenced anywhere, so now I have to be a smartass! 👍

So, the first evil servant gets killed an counted as a non faithful. The two other servants are indifferent and ignorant, and they gets whipped in varying degrees.

Is there any loophole I don’t see?
Click to expand...
There are a couple separate issues here. Firstly, the Church doesn’t use the Bible to “prove” doctrine/dogma. The Bible isn’t a proof-text, nor was it written or compiled with that idea in mind. It is the witness to the truths of God, but not the “proof” of them. Many of our Protestant brethren, especially those on the non-liturgical side of Christianity have tried to turn the Bible into a proof-text, use it and think of it in that way, but it simply isn’t the case.

Secondly, you are correct that this text can denote/support the Church’s teaching about purgatory. The teaching about purgatory, though springs from Sacred Tradition (so does the Bible, btw). And Sacred Tradition is the whole of the revelation of God to men he has revealed to us in Christ. So, don’t get drawn into useless debates over Bible verses (if that’s the impetus for your question) with those who don’t understand these things. There are some who look to the Bible alone, torn apart from the Church and from Sacred Tradition. Getting them to see that can be quite daunting enough, let alone using the “my Bible verse trumps your Bible verse” method of apologetics. 🙂
 
I was looking for the Latin Vulgate and stumbled upon this site which can make verse translation comparisons nice and easy on one page.

The vast majority of the english translations all mention cutting him in two or cutting him to pieces.

I’m no expert in Latin, but the Vulgate version provided at the above link of

**Luke 12:46 **:

“veniet dominus servi illius in die qua non sperat et hora qua nescit et dividet eum partemque eius cum infidelibus ponet”

appears to mirror this site’s version

“veniet dominus servi illius in die qua non sperat et hora qua nescit et dividet eum partemque eius cum infidelibus ponet”

but its accompanying DRV english translation says “…shall separate him and shall appoint him his portion with unbelievers” , as opposed to "cutting him to pieces"

This would seem to be an oppotune time for any fellow members who are scriptural experts and well versed in Latin to step in and give us the best possible translation of the Latin Vulgate.
 
NeedImprovement said:
I was looking for the Latin Vulgate and stumbled upon this site which can make verse translation comparisons nice and easy on one page.

The vast majority of the english translations all mention cutting him in two or cutting him to pieces.

I’m no expert in Latin, but the Vulgate version provided at the above link of

**Luke 12:46 **:

“veniet dominus servi illius in die qua non sperat et hora qua nescit et dividet eum partemque eius cum infidelibus ponet”

appears to mirror this site’s version

“veniet dominus servi illius in die qua non sperat et hora qua nescit et dividet eum partemque eius cum infidelibus ponet”

but its accompanying DRV english translation says “…shall separate him and shall appoint him his portion with unbelievers” , as opposed to "cutting him to pieces"

This would seem to be an oppotune time for any fellow members who are scriptural experts and well versed in Latin to step in and give us the best possible translation of the Latin Vulgate.
Click to expand...
We could try to translate it by ourselves. I guess the keyword there is “dividet” which seems to be the 3rd person of “divido” which I guess means to divide, separate, cut…
 
This passage does not prove purgatory. If a passage proved that purgatory existed, someone with no prior knowledge of Christianity or the bible would have to read it and be able to describe the concept of purgatory from the passage.

If you had someone read this passage, and then asked them if it proved the purgatory existed (while describing purgatory to them) they would probably laugh at you and tell you that it doesn’t say anything about purgatory at all.

It seems that you are trying to read something into this passage that isn’t there.
 
bingbang said:
This passage does not prove purgatory. If a passage proved that purgatory existed, someone with no prior knowledge of Christianity or the bible would have to read it and be able to describe the concept of purgatory from the passage.

If you had someone read this passage, and then asked them if it proved the purgatory existed (while describing purgatory to them) they would probably laugh at you and tell you that it doesn’t say anything about purgatory at all.

It seems that you are trying to read something into this passage that isn’t there.
Click to expand...
True. It doesn’t prove purgatory. That’s not how the Church sees it, either. Having said that, though, it does support it since it is a parable about punishment and reward for the godly/ungodly, therefore, it tells us that there are varying degrees of punishment for sin/the temporal justice sin brings about. It in no way says anything about a place called purgatory, of course. And no one is saying that it does. It is inferred, not proved, by reason.

Also, no one should pick up the Bible cold and expect to understand everything it says nor deduce doctrine directly from it since that was never it’s purpose nor has the Church ever viewed that as its purpose. Since the Church gave us the NT (and the OT by reason of compiling the canon), the Church determines how Scripture is to be read/used. In actuality, the Bible was compiled for use in its liturgies, not in order to “prove” anything to anyone. We need to know a few things about the Bible before attempting to interpret it, you see. 🙂
 
bingbang said:
This passage does not prove purgatory. If a passage proved that purgatory existed, someone with no prior knowledge of Christianity or the bible would have to read it and be able to describe the concept of purgatory from the passage.

If you had someone read this passage, and then asked them if it proved the purgatory existed (while describing purgatory to them) they would probably laugh at you and tell you that it doesn’t say anything about purgatory at all.

It seems that you are trying to read something into this passage that isn’t there.
Click to expand...
The passage is clearly referring to

A. Events that take place AFTER Jesus’s return (second coming)

B. What will happen to “servants” ie Christians, when their deeds prior to the Lord’s returm are examined by Him.

C. The passage is referring to PUNISHMENT post-last days, that is NOT the eternal punishment of Hell.

The passage therefore refutes Protestant teaching that after End Times there are only TWO possible out comes for humans. Joy in Heaven OR Eternal Punishment in Hell. The passage presages post second-coming punishment that is not eternal.

So, since there is no punishment in Heaven
and no relief and forgiveness in Hell

We must be talking of a cleansing post-resurrection which is not Hell and not yet Heaven. Care to say what that place might be?
 
bingbang said:
This passage does not prove purgatory. If a passage proved that purgatory existed, someone with no prior knowledge of Christianity or the bible would have to read it and be able to describe the concept of purgatory from the passage.

If you had someone read this passage, and then asked them if it proved the purgatory existed (while describing purgatory to them) they would probably laugh at you and tell you that it doesn’t say anything about purgatory at all.

It seems that you are trying to read something into this passage that isn’t there.
Click to expand...
especially if you read it as it appears in the Douay Catholic bible - jimc
 
I agree that I used a sloppy language.

Even if we give “cut to pieces” just the meaning “punishment”, that servant is still counted among the faithless, which the two others aren’t. Hell doesn’t fit.
 
ferreus said:
I agree that I used a sloppy language.

Even if we give “cut to pieces” just the meaning “punishment”, that servant is still counted among the faithless, which the two others aren’t. Hell doesn’t fit.
Click to expand...
I don’t know if it was sloppy language… I thought you brought something to my attention that I hadn’t noticed before…👍

Either way, I don’t think I would enjoy being in that first servant’s shoes. First off , as you point out ,he doesn’t appear to have had any faith (makes me wonder what he is doing working for God…:hmmm:…you know, w/o faith). And if the Beatitudes Matt. 5:7] say “Blessed are the merciful for they shall obtain Mercy”, the flip side of that coin, doesn’t appear to be as shiny, as confirmed by Matt. 18:21-35 .
 
Okay, I went digging in the basement and found one of the less known Catholic translations of the Bible (which I’d mentioned in post # 8)

It is called : THE HOLY BIBLE, Knox Version ,( by Monsignor Knox.)

This particular Bible was printed in Great Britain in 1960.

It calls itself
“ A TRANSLATION FROM THE LATIN VULGATE IN LIGHT OF THE HEBREW AND GREEK ORIGINALS

Authorized by the (Catholic) Hierarchy of England and Wales and the Hierarchy of Scotland.”

School Edition.

On the next page, it says:

“ The Knox Translation of the New Testament was first published in 1945 and of the Old Testament (in two volumes, Genesis-Esther and Job-Machabees) in 1949…”

It bears the Imprimatur and a Preface from Bernard Cardinal Griffin (1899-1956) who served as Catholic Archbishop of Westminster from December 1943 to August 1956 .

One of the things I really like about this Bible is that it’s not too new/recent.

For whatever it is worth, this Version renders Luke 12:46 :

“ ; then on some day when he expects nothing, at an hour when he is all unaware, his lord will come, and will cut him off, and assign him his portion with the unfaithful .”
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top