Are we required to kill unbelievers?

[TrueMyth]

(Luke 19:27) Now as for those enemies of mine who did not want me as their king, bring them here and slay them before me.'"

He's not saying he's going to slay his enemies, he's telling his servants to kill those who do not want him to be king?

Is our lord requiring us to start an inquisition to please him?

I will not speculate about your motives, but I would ask you to do two things: 1) Keep an open mind about the answers if you are asking questions, and 2) Take both the immediate and overall (Biblical) context into account.

Let's look at the whole section of Scripture in which this is contained:

Luke 19:11-27-- 11While they were listening to this, he went on to tell them a parable, because he was near Jerusalem and the people thought that the kingdom of God was going to appear at once. 12He said: "A man of noble birth went to a distant country to have himself appointed king and then to return. 13So he called ten of his servants and gave them ten minas. 'Put this money to work,' he said, 'until I come back.' 14"But his subjects hated him and sent a delegation after him to say, 'We don't want this man to be our king.'

15"He was made king, however, and returned home. Then he sent for the servants to whom he had given the money, in order to find out what they had gained with it.
16"The first one came and said, 'Sir, your mina has earned ten more.'
17" 'Well done, my good servant!' his master replied. 'Because you have been trustworthy in a very small matter, take charge of ten cities.'
18"The second came and said, 'Sir, your mina has earned five more.'
19"His master answered, 'You take charge of five cities.'
20"Then another servant came and said, 'Sir, here is your mina; I have kept it laid away in a piece of cloth. 21I was afraid of you, because you are a hard man. You take out what you did not put in and reap what you did not sow.'
22"His master replied, 'I will judge you by your own words, you wicked servant! You knew, did you, that I am a hard man, taking out what I did not put in, and reaping what I did not sow? 23Why then didn't you put my money on deposit, so that when I came back, I could have collected it with interest?'
24"Then he said to those standing by, 'Take his mina away from him and give it to the one who has ten minas.'
25" 'Sir,' they said, 'he already has ten!' 26"He replied, 'I tell you that to everyone who has, more will be given, but as for the one who has nothing, even what he has will be taken away. 27But those enemies of mine who did not want me to be king over them—bring them here and kill them in front of me."

There are several things which I might notice to begin with.

1) This is a parable. No Scripture ought to be ignored or written off, but certain types/parts of Scripture are better for guiding behavior than others. Figurative and allegorical parts, often containing hyperbole, such as parables are always to be subject to didactic passages. In addition to this, we must take some elements of higher criticism into account, which I will get into later.

2) This parable is not even remotely about how we are to treat the enemies of the King; it is about how we are to respond to the King in order to prepare for His return. Therefore, any statement made within the parable which is outside of the context of the parable ought not be taken by itself to guide behavior.

3) Higher criticism throws some doubt on verse 27. The Synoptic Gospels (Matt, Mark, Luke) quite probably all came from the same source-- Q (which has been lost to us). The main reasons for this are the many parallel passages between the three. It stands to reason then that a part of any of the three which has no parallel in the other two is to be regarded as less authentic. Or, if you prefer, we ought to use passages which are parallel to guide our lives over passages which are unique. We see a slightly similar passage in Matthew 25:14-30, which is the parable of the talents. However, there are significant differences which throw doubt on the Lukan account. In Matthew, there is no mention of a king, so the whole sub-drama of the people not wanting him as king--of which verse 27 is the conclusion-- is not present. Also, verse 27 is not present in Matthew's version. In Mark, which is considered the oldest and most reliable of the three, there is no mention of this parable at all. For these reasons, it is not wise to use this verse above all others to guide behavior. We still must address its meaning, however, and I will do that later.

4) The differences between the Matthean and Lukan accounts (minas/talents, king/landowner) can be explained by reference to the intended audience, but what cannot be explained is verse 14 and 27 in Luke's version, which not only is not found in Matthew's, it is a jarring departure from the flow of the story, which raises internal questions even about whether or not it ought to be there. See verse 13 leading into 15: "13So he called ten of his servants and gave them ten minas. 'Put this money to work,' he said, 'until I come back.' 14"But his subjects hated him and sent a delegation after him to say, 'We don't want this man to be our king.'
15"He was made king, however, and returned home. Then he sent for the servants to whom he had given the money, in order to find out what they had gained with it." The verse has no referent in the surrounding or preceding verses, and the issue is entirely out of keeping with the rest of the parable. The only further reference made is verse 27, which follows thusly after 26: "26"He replied, 'I tell you that to everyone who has, more will be given, but as for the one who has nothing, even what he has will be taken away. 27But those enemies of mine who did not want me to be king over them—bring them here and kill them in front of me." Again, it is thrown in almost as an afterthought. It should be obvious from both external criticism (no parallel passage in the most reliable-- Mark; no mention of verse 27 in Matthew) and internal criticism (it is a parable; verses 14 and 27 is jarringly out of context) that Luke 19:27 is a poor verse to use for guiding behavior.

5) But the problem is even worse than that. If we accept that verse 27 is intended as a call to a jihad or Inquisition, what are we to make of Jesus' other statements, such as "Love your enemies, and pray for those who persecute you," or "Blessed are the peacemakers," or "Those who live by the sword will die by the sword," or his treatment of the adulterous woman, or his treatment of the Roman centurion, etc. etc. Virtually every other word of Jesus' is focused on love, compassion, mercy, peace, and nonviolence. This at best creates a radically contradictory Bible and at worst creates a schizophrenic Jesus.

6) So what does Luke 19:27 mean, in context of the parable and Jesus as a whole? I'm not certain that I am right, but I suspect that we must also look at Luke 19:11, which sets off the entire parable: "11While they were listening to this, he went on to tell them a parable, because he was near Jerusalem and the people thought that the kingdom of God was going to appear at once." The entire parable is indicating what is to happen at the end of days, when the Kingdom of God appears. Therefore, any action which takes place in it is in this context. We see further support for this in verses 13-15: "13So he called ten of his servants and gave them ten minas. 'Put this money to work,' he said, 'until I come back.' 14"But his subjects hated him and sent a delegation after him to say, 'We don't want this man to be our king.'
15"He was made king, however, and returned home. Then he sent for the servants to whom he had given the money, in order to find out what they had gained with it." The king (God) gives his servants (Christians) talents (gifts), tells them to use it wisely, and then leaves with the promise of coming back. While he is gone, some of the citizens (humans) rebel against his claim to kingship (do not believe). When the king returns, he receives his kingdom despite their objections. After dealing with his servants (Christians) to whom he gave the talents (gifts), he turns to his enemies (unbelievers) and deals with them. Verse 15 on is all after the king's return-- after the Second Coming and during judgment. Verse 27, then, I believe ought to be interpreted as a warning to those who rebel against God's rightful claim to kingship: You will be punished.


To wrap this all up: Luke 19:27 is seemingly a controversial passage. It seems to indicate on the face of it that Jesus might be calling his followers to begin an Inquisition or a holy war/jihad against those who are enemies of the rightful king. However, that interpretation is based on a faulty understanding of many things. The immediate context throws doubt on that interpretation, as does the overall Biblical context in light of Jesus' other sayings. Also, it is contained in a parable, which is to be secondary to other more concrete passages when developing doctrine and guiding behavior. In addition, there are doubts as to the reliability of that verse, at least when compared to the other Synoptics. Finally, a more reasonable interpretation is present which states that this verse is a warning of what will happen at the judgment, not a command for us now.

 

[jaxwired]

(Luke 19:27) Now as for those enemies of mine who did not want me as their king, bring them here and slay them before me.'"

He's not saying he's going to slay his enemies, he's telling his servants to kill those who do not want him to be king?

Is our lord requiring us to start an inquisition to please him?

Are we required to kill unbelievers? Well....hmmmm...are they gay arctic birds? If they are then I say yes. In fact I think that's why God invented seals and sea lions, to purge the world of the dark evil resting in the hearts of gay penquins. In the words of Daffy Duck...Despicable!

 

[FijianBeliever]

"Now as for those enemies of mine who did not want me as their king, bring them here and slay them before me"

Is he not speaking to the servants with the talents?

When does christ specify who is to use their talents?

You are right Hitesh!!!!!!!

However, you must fulfill the following conditions if you want to do this, according to your quoted verse.

1. Wait for the "King" to return.
2. All killing must be done before Him only.

To everything, there is a season, and a time for every activity under heaven.

Don't go jumping the gun now....

God Bless You All,
Isaia

 

[hithesh]

I will not speculate about your motives, but I would ask you to do two things: 1) Keep an open mind about the answers if you are asking questions, and 2) Take both the immediate and overall (Biblical) context into account.

Let's look at the whole section of Scripture in which this is contained:


There are several things which I might notice to begin with.

1) This is a parable. No Scripture ought to be ignored or written off, but certain types/parts of Scripture are better for guiding behavior than others. Figurative and allegorical parts, often containing hyperbole, such as parables are always to be subject to didactic passages. In addition to this, we must take some elements of higher criticism into account, which I will get into later.

2) This parable is not even remotely about how we are to treat the enemies of the King; it is about how we are to respond to the King in order to prepare for His return. Therefore, any statement made within the parable which is outside of the context of the parable ought not be taken by itself to guide behavior.

3) Higher criticism throws some doubt on verse 27. The Synoptic Gospels (Matt, Mark, Luke) quite probably all came from the same source-- Q (which has been lost to us). The main reasons for this are the many parallel passages between the three. It stands to reason then that a part of any of the three which has no parallel in the other two is to be regarded as less authentic. Or, if you prefer, we ought to use passages which are parallel to guide our lives over passages which are unique. We see a slightly similar passage in Matthew 25:14-30, which is the parable of the talents. However, there are significant differences which throw doubt on the Lukan account. In Matthew, there is no mention of a king, so the whole sub-drama of the people not wanting him as king--of which verse 27 is the conclusion-- is not present. Also, verse 27 is not present in Matthew's version. In Mark, which is considered the oldest and most reliable of the three, there is no mention of this parable at all. For these reasons, it is not wise to use this verse above all others to guide behavior. We still must address its meaning, however, and I will do that later.

4) The differences between the Matthean and Lukan accounts (minas/talents, king/landowner) can be explained by reference to the intended audience, but what cannot be explained is verse 14 and 27 in Luke's version, which not only is not found in Matthew's, it is a jarring departure from the flow of the story, which raises internal questions even about whether or not it ought to be there. See verse 13 leading into 15: "13So he called ten of his servants and gave them ten minas. 'Put this money to work,' he said, 'until I come back.' 14"But his subjects hated him and sent a delegation after him to say, 'We don't want this man to be our king.'
15"He was made king, however, and returned home. Then he sent for the servants to whom he had given the money, in order to find out what they had gained with it." The verse has no referent in the surrounding or preceding verses, and the issue is entirely out of keeping with the rest of the parable. The only further reference made is verse 27, which follows thusly after 26: "26"He replied, 'I tell you that to everyone who has, more will be given, but as for the one who has nothing, even what he has will be taken away. 27But those enemies of mine who did not want me to be king over them—bring them here and kill them in front of me." Again, it is thrown in almost as an afterthought. It should be obvious from both external criticism (no parallel passage in the most reliable-- Mark; no mention of verse 27 in Matthew) and internal criticism (it is a parable; verses 14 and 27 is jarringly out of context) that Luke 19:27 is a poor verse to use for guiding behavior.

5) But the problem is even worse than that. If we accept that verse 27 is intended as a call to a jihad or Inquisition, what are we to make of Jesus' other statements, such as "Love your enemies, and pray for those who persecute you," or "Blessed are the peacemakers," or "Those who live by the sword will die by the sword," or his treatment of the adulterous woman, or his treatment of the Roman centurion, etc. etc. Virtually every other word of Jesus' is focused on love, compassion, mercy, peace, and nonviolence. This at best creates a radically contradictory Bible and at worst creates a schizophrenic Jesus.

6) So what does Luke 19:27 mean, in context of the parable and Jesus as a whole? I'm not certain that I am right, but I suspect that we must also look at Luke 19:11, which sets off the entire parable: "11While they were listening to this, he went on to tell them a parable, because he was near Jerusalem and the people thought that the kingdom of God was going to appear at once." The entire parable is indicating what is to happen at the end of days, when the Kingdom of God appears. Therefore, any action which takes place in it is in this context. We see further support for this in verses 13-15: "13So he called ten of his servants and gave them ten minas. 'Put this money to work,' he said, 'until I come back.' 14"But his subjects hated him and sent a delegation after him to say, 'We don't want this man to be our king.'
15"He was made king, however, and returned home. Then he sent for the servants to whom he had given the money, in order to find out what they had gained with it." The king (God) gives his servants (Christians) talents (gifts), tells them to use it wisely, and then leaves with the promise of coming back. While he is gone, some of the citizens (humans) rebel against his claim to kingship (do not believe). When the king returns, he receives his kingdom despite their objections. After dealing with his servants (Christians) to whom he gave the talents (gifts), he turns to his enemies (unbelievers) and deals with them. Verse 15 on is all after the king's return-- after the Second Coming and during judgment. Verse 27, then, I believe ought to be interpreted as a warning to those who rebel against God's rightful claim to kingship: You will be punished.


To wrap this all up: Luke 19:27 is seemingly a controversial passage. It seems to indicate on the face of it that Jesus might be calling his followers to begin an Inquisition or a holy war/jihad against those who are enemies of the rightful king. However, that interpretation is based on a faulty understanding of many things. The immediate context throws doubt on that interpretation, as does the overall Biblical context in light of Jesus' other sayings. Also, it is contained in a parable, which is to be secondary to other more concrete passages when developing doctrine and guiding behavior. In addition, there are doubts as to the reliability of that verse, at least when compared to the other Synoptics. Finally, a more reasonable interpretation is present which states that this verse is a warning of what will happen at the judgment, not a command for us now.

It seems as though you are saying, that final portion means nothing, but apparently it must mean something for Luke to write it in, it's not a minor detail, but a very strong detail. I could easily say that god wants you to use your talents, and kill those who do not want to worship him. And this is the requirment for all servants of God, which is not so much different then the requirement of certain OT passages that tells to stone apostates.
The apostate has the oppurtinity to convert, so we don't kill them for being apostates, but we kill them, if they choose not to convert. In giving them the option, we are showing love. If you believe this Lord to be Christ, tell me how you see your way around this?

The adulteror had no option to repent, she was being stoned for the act, the apostate has an option," serve the true lord or die." Isn't this also how the servant was treated, the lord didn't so much care what the servant thought of him, or even if he did the bare minimum, as long as he had the option to do the bare minimum?

 

[TrueMyth]

It seems as though you are saying, that final portion means nothing, but apparently it must mean something for Luke to write it in, it's not a minor detail, but a very strong detail. I could easily say that god wants you to use your talents, and kill those who do not want to worship him. And this is the requirment for all servants of God, which is not so much different then the requirement of certain OT passages that tells to stone apostates.
The apostate has the oppurtinity to convert, so we don't kill them for being apostates, but we kill them, if they choose not to convert. In giving them the option, we are showing love. If you believe this Lord to be Christ, tell me how you see your way around this?

The adulteror had no option to repent, she was being stoned for the act, the apostate has an option," serve the true lord or die." Isn't this also how the servant was treated, the lord didn't so much care what the servant thought of him, or even if he did the bare minimum, as long as he had the option to do the bare minimum?

No, you're quite doing violence to all that I wrote to sum it up as "That final portion [verse 27] means nothing". In (6), I described what verse 27 does mean, namely that "The king (God) gives his servants (Christians) talents (gifts), tells them to use it wisely, and then leaves with the promise of coming back. While he is gone, some of the citizens (humans) rebel against his claim to kingship (do not believe). When the king returns, he receives his kingdom despite their objections. After dealing with his servants (Christians) to whom he gave the talents (gifts), he turns to his enemies (unbelievers) and deals with them. Verse 15 on is all after the king's return-- after the Second Coming and during judgment. Verse 27, then, I believe ought to be interpreted as a warning to those who rebel against God's rightful claim to kingship: You will be punished" [Edit: To be perfectly clear on the meaning of verse 27, I ought to have added "at the Judgment" to the end]

To put it plainly: verse 27 ["that final portion"] means that those who do not want the rightful King will reap the rewards (if hell can be called that) of their actions at the jugment. This is not straining the meaning of the passage or the verse-- the interpretation I have presented makes better sense both of the immediate context (the parable) and the overall context (Jesus' words as a whole). In addition to this, it has the support of morality and reason. That is what my other points (1)-(5) were intended to prove. I have not received a response for those points yet. If you have not had time, I understand. If you disagree with them, I would love to hear your response. If you agree with them and have changed your mind, I would love to hear that too!

 

[ghs1994]

Hmmm.....this subject of this thread sounds very similar to what Islam teaches. Have we converted?

 

[TrueMyth]

Hmmm.....this subject of this thread sounds very similar to what Islam teaches. Have we converted?

Not that I'm aware of... However, remember, killing the infidels is only a minority of Islam, and it is not what the mainstream teaches. How would you like to be judged on the abortion clinic bombers or the KKK, all of whom use the Bible (incorrectly, as the jihadists might use the Qua'ran) to support their ideology.

For hithesh's benefit and anyone else's, I think I ought to summarize my points, since I tend to be verbose to the point of confusion. :o

1) Luke 19:27 is contained in a parable, which is to be subjected to direct and literal passages when forming doctrine and guiding behavior.

2) Luke 19:27, interpreted as hithesh does, is out of context of the meaning of the parable as a whole

3) Luke 19:27 has no parallel passage, even in a parallel parable in Matthew. Mark does not even contain the parable. For these reasons, it is of dubious authenticity-- at the very least, it ought to be subjected to other more well-supported passages.

4) Luke 19:27 and its introduction, verse 14, is a jarring departure from the narrative flow and purpose, and thus raises questions regarding its original inclusion-- at the very least, it ought to be understood only in relation to the dominant narrative in the parable.

5) Luke 19:27, interpreted as hithesh does, is sharply in contradiction with virtually all of Jesus' other sayings.

6) Verse 15 on is after the return of the king-- an allegory for the Second Coming. For the above reasons, Luke 19:27 ought to be interpreted as being part of an overall illustration that all will be rewarded or punished accordingly after Jesus returns: the good servants, the bad servants, and the rebels.

 

[intricatic]

"Now as for those enemies of mine who did not want me as their king, bring them here and slay them before me"

Is he not speaking to the servants with the talents?

When does christ specify who is to use their talents?

The point I was making is that it's very reasonably not the servants whom the nobleman had rewarded;

And he said to those who stood by, Take the mina from him and give it to him who has ten minas.
(Luke 19:24)

But were the servants whom He had sent to rule over their cities the servants 'who stood by'?

Luke 19
17 And he said to him, Well done , good servant, because you have been faithful in a very little, have authority over ten cities. 18 And the second came, saying, Lord, your mina has made five minas. 19 And he said the same to him, You be over five cities.

'Those who stood by' does not imply the former over the latter, but it does imply servants in an ambiguous way. It also implies that this nobleman was standing there giving them the command to do what he willed they do.

 

[redhead]

No were are not supposed to kill un believers. in the bible it says "go ye into all the world and preach the gosple"
So instead of killing them be a witness and bring them to God. What would you think if before you were brought to Christ some one killed you because you di not believe. In stead they brought you to the Lord.

 

[intricatic]

But also I might point out that if we're to take this as a paradigm of Christ to His people (the servants who will be lifted up in Him), the one whom hid away the coin instead of investing it or using it for some benefit would not be considered an unbeliever, but a believer who hide up the gifts given to them by Christ; the ones whom rejected the nobleman would have a conscious knowledge of what they were rejecting and not just some vague and impassive notion of textural scripture that they reject. It's not a small or vague thing to rebel against a potential king.

 

[ghs1994]

Not that I'm aware of... However, remember, killing the infidels is only a minority of Islam, and it is not what the mainstream teaches. How would you like to be judged on the abortion clinic bombers or the KKK, all of whom use the Bible (incorrectly, as the jihadists might use the Qua'ran) to support their ideology.

For hithesh's benefit and anyone else's, I think I ought to summarize my points, since I tend to be verbose to the point of confusion. :o

1) Luke 19:27 is contained in a parable, which is to be subjected to direct and literal passages when forming doctrine and guiding behavior.

2) Luke 19:27, interpreted as hithesh does, is out of context of the meaning of the parable as a whole

3) Luke 19:27 has no parallel passage, even in a parallel parable in Matthew. Mark does not even contain the parable. For these reasons, it is of dubious authenticity-- at the very least, it ought to be subjected to other more well-supported passages.

4) Luke 19:27 and its introduction, verse 14, is a jarring departure from the narrative flow and purpose, and thus raises questions regarding its original inclusion-- at the very least, it ought to be understood only in relation to the dominant narrative in the parable.

5) Luke 19:27, interpreted as hithesh does, is sharply in contradiction with virtually all of Jesus' other sayings.

6) Verse 15 on is after the return of the king-- an allegory for the Second Coming. For the above reasons, Luke 19:27 ought to be interpreted as being part of an overall illustration that all will be rewarded or punished accordingly after Jesus returns: the good servants, the bad servants, and the rebels.

Actually, if you go thru the Quran, you will find that what it teaches is violence towards those who will not accept their religion as the one and only.

 

[TrueMyth]

That's one interpretation of it, certainly. Are you sure you're not committing the same error hithesh is?

 

[hithesh]

3) Luke 19:27 has no parallel passage, even in a parallel parable in Matthew. Mark does not even contain the parable. For these reasons, it is of dubious authenticity-- at the very least, it ought to be subjected to other more well-supported passages.

So, you are saying perhaps the passage is a latter scribe added portion?

5) Luke 19:27, interpreted as hithesh does, is sharply in contradiction with virtually all of Jesus' other sayings.

How is it in contradiction to any of Christ's teaching? Is the death penalty in contradiction to Christ teachings?

Secondly, if it was the final judgement, he would say bring them here, and I'll slay them, or throw them into the eternal fire, this way it would imply that they were already dead, prior to being cast. Secondly there's no repeal of all OT punishments, the only punishment one might assume that is no longer allowed is the stoning of Adulterors, or stoning, without the option of repenting to avoid stoning.

I see nothing wrong, in killing apostates, according to the bible, because in a biblical sense they are worse then murderers, and rapist, because they have the greatest influence in sending others to hell. The church of old seemed to not find any conflict with their faith in killing apostates, so why should we?

Is it only because we can't stomach doing such things, that we refuse to do them, even if the bible ordered them to be done?

(note: Any individual who claims the servants with the talents, and the servants ordered to slay, are two different servants, is not even worth the debate, because any moron knows that it's the same servants, so please be honest in that assemment.)

 

[TrueMyth]

So, you are saying perhaps the passage is a latter scribe added portion?

I believe that it might be. For those who find that conclusion unacceptable, there is still a minimal requirement in interpreting this verse which is derived from the evidence: "At the very least, it ought to be subjected to other more well-supported passages." Even the most strictly inerrantist fundamentalist will agree that certain parts of the Bible are better for doctrine than others. Perhaps not the fundamentalist, but at least the rigorously strict inerrantist will agree that higher criticism/hermeneutics is useful to the formation of fundamental doctrine or dogma. They would say, "While none of it is false, some of it is more true than others"-- a principle we can clearly see when we are presented with shades of grey: While none of them are black, some of them are more white than others. If we are looking for the best representation of white we can, we had better use the one at the far right of the spectrum.

It is simple: We have two sets of facts, both seemingly contradictory. Even if we admit the contradiction (which I don't-- see #6), it is still always responsible interpretation to use the more well-supported fact to guide behavior or doctrinal formation. Luke 19:27 is not nearly as well-supported as several of Christ's other teachings.

How is it in contradiction to any of Christ's teaching? Is the death penalty in contradiction to Christ teachings?

Luke 9:51-55-- "51As the time approached for him to be taken up to heaven, Jesus resolutely set out for Jerusalem. 52And he sent messengers on ahead, who went into a Samaritan village to get things ready for him; 53but the people there did not welcome him, because he was heading for Jerusalem. 54When the disciples James and John saw this, they asked, "Lord, do you want us to call fire down from heaven to destroy them?" 55But Jesus turned and rebuked them, 56and they went to another village."
(If Jesus in Luke 19:27 intends to mean that His followers should kill unbelievers, why does He not command His closest followers to do so? In fact, there is not one mention in the Gospels or anywhere else that Jesus even indicates that He would like to see those who reject Him slaughtered; even less does He ever order their execution outright)

Matthew 5:9--"Blessed are the peacemakers, for they will be called sons of God."
(It is very hard to believe that Jesus can simultaneously order the execution of all unbelievers and call peacemakers blessed. If you are inclined to say that Jesus is asking for peace with the sword, look no further than Matt. 26:52--"Put your sword back in its place... for all who draw the sword will die by the sword")

Matthew 5:39-41--39But I tell you, Do not resist an evil person. If someone strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also. 40And if someone wants to sue you and take your tunic, let him have your cloak as well. 41If someone forces you to go one mile, go with him two miles.
(So we are to treat an evil person with the absolute extremity of kindness and personal sacrifice, until they say "I reject Jesus!", at which point we dash their brains on the lawn? Like I said, to interpret the verse as you do is to create a schizophrenic Jesus)

Matthew 5:43-44--"43You have heard that it was said, 'Love your neighbor and hate your enemy.' 44But I tell you: Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you."
(If those who reject Jesus are enemies of God, certainly we cannot love them while slitting their throats)

Luke 23:34--"Jesus said, "Father, forgive them, for they do not know what they are doing.""
(Jesus, tortured on the cross in the definitive example of rejection of Him, asks God to forgive those who have done so. And then He asks His followers to murder them... wait a minute...)

Matthew 28:18-20--"18Then Jesus came to them and said, "All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. 19Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, 20and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you."
(I suppose when Jesus said "baptizing them", He meant in their own blood, right? If Jesus' teaching is that we ought to murder the unbelievers, isn't that kind of an important detail to leave out in this verse?)

And the definitive refutation...

Matthew 13:27-30--"27The owner's servants came to him and said, 'Sir, didn't you sow good seed in your field? Where then did the weeds come from?'

28" 'An enemy did this,' he replied.
"The servants asked him, 'Do you want us to go and pull them up?' 29" 'No,' he answered, 'because while you are pulling the weeds, you may root up the wheat with them. 30Let both grow together until the harvest. At that time I will tell the harvesters: First collect the weeds and tie them in bundles to be burned; then gather the wheat and bring it into my barn.' "
(Weeds = unbelievers, wheat = believers. Can't get more clear than this)

And these are just the smallest smattering of verses. Jesus' teaching as a whole is focused on nonviolence, mercy, compassion, justice, and love. All of which are inimical to a policy of killing those who do not agree with Him.

As far as capital punishment goes, it is not unreasonable to interpret Jesus' words at the very least to be leaning in that direction. However, they are not clear enough to be a mandate.

Secondly, if it was the final judgement, he would say bring them here, and I'll slay them, or throw them into the eternal fire, this way it would imply that they were already dead, prior to being cast. Secondly there's no repeal of all OT punishments, the only punishment one might assume that is no longer allowed is the stoning of Adulterors, or stoning, without the option of repenting to avoid stoning.

If it was the final judgment, He would talk of His return first. And we find in verse 15: "He was made king, however, and returned home. Then he sent for the servants to whom he had given the money, in order to find out what they had gained with it." Therefore, it is clear that whatever the interpretation a person ascribes to verse 27, it ABSOLUTELY MUST take place after Jesus returns again. You have yet to answer this objection, so I'm curious to hear your response to it.

Also, I reiterate yet again: This is a parable. Any Bible scholar, no matter what their ideology, will tell you that taking parables literally is dangerous and irresponsible business. Are we to think that only virgins will be allowed into heaven? (Matt. 25) Will heaven be one vast pile of dough? Or will it be a treasure hidden in a field? Or will it be a mustard tree? These are merely forms which are intended to convey some core truth, but not point-for-point truth. In other parables, we see God personally handing out punishment to unbelievers at the judgment. In this parable, we see God delegating authority to others for punishment. Why? Because the form used in Luke 19:11-27 is God as a king, and a king delegates authority. The relevant question is not who punishes, but that there will be punishment.

But I don't know; maybe we who accept Christ will have some role in punishment of unbelievers. In any case, since the action occurs after Christ's return, the issue is moot to the main question: should we, now, today, start to kill unbelievers? To think we should is a perversion of Jesus' teachings and a willful blindness to His other teachings and the obvious meaning of the parable.

I see nothing wrong, in killing apostates, according to the bible, because in a biblical sense they are worse then murderers, and rapist, because they have the greatest influence in sending others to hell. The church of old seemed to not find any conflict with their faith in killing apostates, so why should we?

Is it only because we can't stomach doing such things, that we refuse to do them, even if the bible ordered them to be done?

(note: Any individual who claims the servants with the talents, and the servants ordered to slay, are two different servants, is not even worth the debate, because any moron knows that it's the same servants, so please be honest in that assemment.)

I have no intention of arguing which servants were to do the slaying. As I said, perhaps we will somehow participate in the punishment of unbelievers. Or, if not, God in the parable-- as king-- delegates authority, since that is the mode chosen to express the core truth of the parable: that rebels will receive punishment after the king returns.

Point of interest: an "apostate" is someone who was once part of the faith, and then fell away. We are talking of unbelievers here-- both those who were once and never were Christians.

Yeah, well, the church of old also had no problem killing interracial couples, homosexuals, selling blacks into slavery, and stoning adulterers. The church's faults in these areas by no means removes all their reliability; they could easily have been wrong on those issues and be right on this one. However, if we are to take what the church of old did and state that it has some value for our behavior today, we must provide some reason for it. Since there is none in the Bible, I can only assume you are intending an appeal to authority here. And that is precisely which area the church of old's faults remove it from consideration.

So why should we not kill unbelievers? Because the church of old, as on so many other issues, was wrong in its interpretation of the Bible (Point of interest: actually, its actions in this regard were motivated much less by searching the Scriptures and much more by trust in the complete infallibility of the Pope). It can be shown quite clearly-- and has been shown-- that an interpretation of Luke 19:27 as a command to kill infidels is wrong-headed on several levels.

 

[TrueMyth]

Hithesh--

I have given your opinions enough respect to give them a point-by-point refutation; would you be so kind as to do the same for me this time (assuming, of course, you have a refutation)? I am not asking you to be as wordy as I am-- I wish that upon no one! I simply ask that you address all the points I present in whatever fashion or form you like, since I have done the same for you.

Most especially, I would like an answer to the point I raised: Verse 15 clearly seems to indicate that there is a shift in time frame to when the king (Jesus) returns. Since this event has not yet occurred, how then can verse 27 be interpreted to mean that now and today we ought to go out killing infidels?

 

[united4Peace]

(Luke 19:27) Now as for those enemies of mine who did not want me as their king, bring them here and slay them before me.'"

He's not saying he's going to slay his enemies, he's telling his servants to kill those who do not want him to be king?

Is our lord requiring us to start an inquisition to please him?

Could this be the reason I get the urge to strangle my husband at times?? (he is an unbeliever)

 

[BlackSabb]

Well, I'm pretty sure it's the same servants, that the Lord required to use their talents, and that requirment is for us, so why wouldn't the second requirment be for us? It fits perfectly well into certain OT laws, and since not an iota of those laws have passed, perhaps we are still to send apostates to death.

The servants aren't tossing them into the fiery furnance, no more so than, say we do, in taking a sinners life on death row, or whatever. We kill in this world, and the angels toss the souls into the fiery furnace in the outerworld.

I would think a vocal apostate is much worse than a rapist, or mass murderer, because they lead other people to eternal torrment, including their own children. Why not slaughter them, as christ asked us to, for the sake of these children?

Ohhh.......how stupid is this line of questioning?

I hope you don't own guns.

 

[hithesh]

I believe that it might be. For those who find that conclusion unacceptable,

I admire your honesty, but you do realize that in saying this, you are admiting that the passage is a bit controversial, or sharp. But I have an easier solution, then blaming a scribe, why not just say the Lord in the parable is not Christ?

Now, you've already noted, for christ to tell his servants to slay those who would not see him as king, is in contradiction to other portions of the gospel, such as the sermon of the mount, and direct rebukes of the disciples for even thinking along the lines of slaying anyone. SO we have noted that contradiction.

Now tell me, is it also a contradiction, for the king in the parable to desire the slaying of those who did not want him as king, compared to Christ on the cross who forgave such individuals? (perhaps, you can also answer, that if the citizens of a certian country, did not want a particular king to rule, is it the citizens that are to blame, or the king? )

Now, are the attributes associated with this king in this parable admirable? Does he seem loving, and merciful? Here you have servants serving their master because they fear him. Now, do you serve God because you fear his wrath, or do you do so out of love for him? DO the gospels ask us to serve god, because we fear him, or because we love him? Do the gospels tell us that it's okay that we practically hate our Lord, as long as we serve him with minimal effort (acquiring interest).? Also, if this Lord was a human Lord, would he seem like a good Lord, or a more like a tyrant?

In the following passage a quite remarkable thing happens, all the individuals started giving Christ all sorts, of thing such as an OX, with no questions asked, they throw there jackets on the floor for him. Now, do they do so out of fear, or out of pure love for him?

You have been honest in pointing out the contradiction, and I would like to see if you can honestly, see these ones as well.

I believe the Lord in the parable is not Christ, other believers try and tell me he is Christ, though he contradicts his own behavior through out the gospels, if I were to believe he was Christ, and ignore these contradictions, with the rest of the gospel narrative, then I would also have to say that perhaps christ does require us to slay unbelievers. Because that final statement is very strong, for a gospel writer to include it for no reason at all.

You asserted that we should perhaps view the matthew 25, version of the parable, to be the true one, since it omits this portion, but perhaps a scribe omitted that portion in matthew 25, for the sake of promoting a more compassionate Christ. But, since, no record of a different version of luke 19, is to be found, then it's more probable that Luke did include that nasty portion, about slaying unbelievers, now the question would have to be, why?

If the gospels writers are as wise as I believe them to me, and you as well, why would they include such a passage, that can easily be used by individuals who long to kill unbelievers, with very little biblical opposition. Now, I do admit you opposition is strong, but you do work around the passage, instead of confronting the passage head on, because it cannot be confronted head on, because it's fairly cleary in what it's saying "Servants kill those who do not want me to be king", and you have three options to confront it (You don't really have the liberty to interpret the passage differently) 1) Point out the contradictions that arise in following the passage in full, to other portions of the gospel 2) say that it's a latter addition by scribes, or 3) (the option that I belong to) the lord in the parable is not Christ.

If you choose option one, you would also have to note the other contradictions with the lord in this particular Parable, to Christ in the gospels. Option 2 is quite difficult to assert, because the claim that it was a latter addition by scribe, has little backing, because all known manuscripts contain this passage.

 

[127Rockledge]

Ohhh.......how stupid is this line of questioning?

I hope you don't own guns.

Explain why you disagree.

 

[TrueMyth]

I admire your honesty, but you do realize that in saying this, you are admiting that the passage is a bit controversial, or sharp. But I have an easier solution, then blaming a scribe, why not just say the Lord in the parable is not Christ?

Actually, in thinking that it might be a later addition, I am not at all admitting that the passage is controversial or sharp. Do we simply explain away controversial passages as later additions? Of course not. I believe it MIGHT be a later addition because its hermeneutics are shaky, not because it is uncomfortable.

Again, however, even to those who are strict inerrantists and never want to say this about any Biblical passage, this passage ought to be subjected to other passages which are more well-supported.

Now, you've already noted, for christ to tell his servants to slay those who would not see him as king, is in contradiction to other portions of the gospel, such as the sermon of the mount, and direct rebukes of the disciples for even thinking along the lines of slaying anyone. SO we have noted that contradiction.

I'm glad you see this.

Now tell me, is it also a contradiction, for the king in the parable to desiring the slaying of those who did not want him as king, compared to Christ on the cross who forgave such individuals? (perhaps, you can also answer, that if the citizens of a certian country, did not want a particular king to rule, is it the citizens that are to blame, or the king? )

Now, are the attributes associated with this king in this parable admirable? Does he seem loving, and merciful? Here you have servants serving their master because they fear him. Now, do you serve God because you fear his wrath, or do you do so out of love for him? DO the gospels ask us to serve god, because we fear him, or because we love him? Do the gospels tell us that it's okay that we practically hate our Lord, as long as we serve him with minimal effort (acquiring interest).? Also, if this Lord was a human Lord, would he seem like a good Lord, or a more like a tyrant?

We should serve God both because we love Him and fear Him. Both are present in the Bible, and both ought to be followed. Also, be careful on the meaning of the word "fear" here. I have done some fairly extensive study into this word, because I always found it wierd that God asks us to be afraid of Him. As the result of this study, I think that the better word in English for the original Hebrew is "awe". It is like C. S. Lewis says: God is not safe, but He is good. We should never be completely comfortable around God-- he's not a tame lion, after all-- but we should always know He has our best interest at heart; we should not be afraid of Him.

We should remember that there are two threads in Christ's words regarding eternal damnation. One is that of a retributive punishment inflicted, and one is that of a natural result of actions. We are just as free to speak of both, since quite possibly they are the same in the end analysis. However, just as with faith and works, we ought not ignore either. God's retributive punishment is most like Him finally giving up on us, and His finally giving up on us is most like retributive punishment. They are inseparable.

Therefore, I must caution you yet again to be careful not to interpret a parable too literally. Jesus talks of the kingdom of heaven as a mustard seed because it serves a specific purpose: It demonstrates the seeming smallness and insignificance of the Kingdom, but it is really a mighty thing. Jesus also talks of God as a king giving gifts to servants to keep in trust until His return because it serves a specific purpose: To illustrate that God will judge us all based on what we do with what we are given. However, just as we must not take from the mustard seed analogy that the Kingdom of Heaven will have actual roots and will slowly grow into being, we ought not take from the king analogy that God will always delegate authority or that He only directly punishes and never simply gives up.

We must also keep in mind the original audience. Jesus is speaking to a people who have never had a problem with a king putting down a rebellion. Even when they were on the rebelling end, their issue was that the king was not a good king-- but not because he was putting down their rebellion. Their rebellion was the cause, not the effect, of the king's intervention. Jesus will always speak to people in their own language and customs/culture; the essential core truth, however, will remain the same. The essential core truth of this parable is that all will be judged based on their actions-- the servants for what they did with the gifts they were given, and the rebels because they rebelled. The exact presentation of that truth is irrelevant and it is irresponsible to fixate on it.

In the following passage a quite remarkable thing happens, all the individuals started giving Christ all sorts, of thing such as an OX, with no questions asked, they throw there jackets on the floor for him. Now, do they do so out of fear, or out of pure love for him?

You have been honest in pointing out the contradiction, and I would like to see if you can honestly, see these ones as well.

I believe the Lord in the parable is not Christ, other believers try and tell me he is Christ, though he contradicts his own behavior through out the gospels, if I were to believe he was Christ, and ignore these contradictions, with the rest of the gospel narrative, then I would also have to say that perhaps christ does require us to slay unbelievers. Because that final statement is very strong, for a gospel writer to include it for no reason at all.

There is no contradiction present. Jesus teaches us to love our enemies and he forgives his murderers on the cross. This is mercy. However, being God, He is also justice. I don't want to put ideas in your mouth, but perhaps you are having a problem here with God condemning anyone to hell. I have always found C. S. Lewis' words here to be a decisive refutation of this position:

What are you asking God to do? To wipe out their past sins, and, at all costs, to give them a fresh start, smoothing every difficulty and offering every miraculous help? But He has done so, on Calvary. To forgive them? They will not be forgiven. To leave them alone? Alas, I am afraid that is what He does.

God is mercy, He is justice, and He is holiness. He cannot be in the presence of sin, and to see His children in it pains Him. Therefore, He calls them to Him and attempts to perfects them so that they can be with Him. However, He desires their free love and surrender, so He will never force them to come. It is entailed in this that some will not come. If all will be saved, we must ask "With their will or without it?"

If the king in the parable is not Christ, who is he? To avoid misunderstanding you, I would like to know what you think.

You asserted that we should perhaps view the matthew 25, version of the parable, to be the true one, since it omits this portion, but perhaps a scribe omitted that portion in matthew 25, for the sake of promoting a more compassionate Christ. But, since, no record of a different version of luke 19, is to be found, then it's more probable that Luke did include that nasty portion, about slaying unbelievers, now the question would have to be, why?

I have doubts about Matthew's version as well, since it is not contained in Mark, the oldest and most reliable of the Synoptics. However, even if we ignore that, we are still left with this bare fact: Luke 19:27 does not even remotely have a parallel in any New Testament writings of any kind, let alone Jesus' own words. For that reason, it is of questionable authenticity; even if it is fully authentic, it ought to be subjected to other more well-supported passages.

And this is all assuming that your interpretation is the correct one. It is not, since verse 15 on clearly indicates that the setting of the action is after the king's return.

If the gospels writers are as wise as I believe them to me, and you as well, why would they include such a passage, that can easily be used by individuals who long to kill unbelievers, with very little biblical opposition. Now, I do admit you opposition is strong, but you do work around the passage, instead of confronting the passage head on, because it cannot be confronted head on, because it's fairly cleary in what it's saying "Servants kill those who do not want me to be king", and you have three options to confront it (You don't really have the liberty to interpret the passage differently) 1) Point out the contradictions that arise in following the passage in full, to other portions of the gospel 2) say that it's a latter addition by scribes, or 3) (the option that I belong to) the lord in the parable is not Christ.

If you choose option one, you would also have to note the other contradictions with the lord in this particular Parable, to Christ in the gospels. Option 2 is quite difficult to assert, because the claim that it was a latter addition by scribe, has little backing, because all known manuscripts contain this passage.

Yet again, let me reiterate a point you have yet to address: verse 15 makes any interpretation of verse 27 be after the king's return. I am quite clearly confronting the passage head-on in my interpretation. Yes, the verse does say "Servants kill those who do not want me to be king." However, it is clearly in the context of the judgment. Also, while I believe it might be possible that we will in some way participate in the punishment of unbelievers at that time, it is not necessary that we interpret that part literally since it is not part of the essential core meaning of the parable, and since the whole passage is a non-literal parable.

I believe there is no contradiction with other parts of Jesus' teachings, as I have just discussed. It is two entirely different matters to say "Love your enemies here on earth" and "Those who will not repent will receive judgment when I return". The two are in no way contradictory. You first created a difficulty in the passage which does not exist through questionable hermeneutics and contextual interpretation. Then you created a contradiction with other Jesus sayings which does not exist through the same tactics-- this time you also added faulty logic.

Verse 27, because of verse 15, clearly takes place at the judgment after Jesus returns. Therefore, I ask you: Do you believe there is a contradiction between Jesus' other sayings and final punishment? That is the only contradiction which can conceivably be present.