Joan of Bark

From the RSV:
"Do not think that I have come to bring peace on Earth; I have not come to bring peace, but a sword." Matthew 10-34.
"If anyone comes to me and does not hate his own father and mother and wife and children and brothers and sisters, yes, and even his own life, he cannot be my disciple" Luke 14-26.

These are not outright orders to kill, but they are hardly messages of love.

GakuseiDon

No, I mean to the extent that expressing it as a command for God's followers to kill God's enemies implies that Jesus is commanding it of HIS followers who were listening at the time. It's an End Times parable, and I doubt that anyone would have believed that it had immediate relevance.

yalla

Somewhere Paul tells his flock to deliver up an evil doer to Satan "for the destruction of the flesh" which may not mean killing [?..actually has a nastier tone] but is certainly not a message of sweetness and love.

LP675

Speaking as a 'Fundy' addressing the question of “whether the bible commands Christians to kill� I would like to make a few observations.

Firstly, the bible certainly doesn’t command Christians to kill in what might be referred to in ‘as this earthly life’. I think the verse cited earlier Luke 19:27 can’t be anything other than a reference to end times events, especially in light of the preceding phrase in v 11 “the people thought that the kingdom of God was going to appear at once�. So I would have to agree with GakuseiDon:
Now regarding the contention this is an order for Jesus follower to kill in the end times I think no one has yet made a case for it.

The scenario described is that Jesus / the King returns (v 15) and summons his servants “to whom he had given the money�. This is reminiscent of the “judgment day� type passages, the following events are “end times� or “final judgment� events. Lets for arguments sake say the servants are the believers, or Christians, or followers of Jesus (even the one who ends up being called a wicked in v 22).

In v 24 he says “to those standing by, 'Take his mina away from him and give it to the one who has ten minas.'�. ‘Those standing by’, (who are not these ten servants (Christians) who have been summoned), protest in v 25. Jesus replies to them (i.e. “those standing by�) in v 26, then gives ‘those standing by' the order in v 27 “But those enemies of mine who did not want me to be king over them--bring them here and kill them in front of me.'".

It seems ‘those standing by’ are NOT the servants who were summoned (i.e. believers).

So who are those standing by? Given the story is a parable I don’t think they have to be identified as any particular person or group, it is metaphor or mechanism used in the parable for the enemies of Jesus being killed or destroyed at the end times. It seems similar to the passage of Matt 25:41 If one is inclined to identify ‘those standing by’ as any group, I personally think the identification as angels would be make more sense, as they are often servants who actively implement God’s punishment, particularly in end times scenarios (See the activity of angels in revelation for example).

In summary, I think there is no evidence the bible commands Christians to kill in this life, and I don’t think a good case has been made that Christians are the ones to implement the punishment of God in the end times.

Amaleq13

Immediate relevance isn't necessary to answer the OP question in the affirmative if future commands to kill are allowable.

Diogenes the Cynic

Let's also not forget that Jesus predicted the end times would come within the lifetimes of his followers and the earliest Chistian communities definitely reflected a belief in an imminent apocalypse.

Sensei Meela

Admirable; ever try this tactic at synagogues or mosques? [Just seeing how objective you might be]
For one thing, "translations" are when a statement is taken from one language and restated in another language. "Interpretations," then, are when one takes a statement from one language and tries to divine what it might mean in that same language.

For instance, take the English statement 'I am hot.' If I were to translate that statement into Spanish, it might read 'Tengo calor.' However, that is based on the interpretation of the English phrase which would render it's meaning 'I am experiencing heat.' The phrase could also be interpreted very differently to mean 'I am attractive,' in which case the translation would also be very different, 'Soy hermoso' (more or less).

Obviously, translations and interpretations are related, and each serves to complicate the other; suffice it to say that tranlsations are more complex, however, in that they require [a minimum of] two interpretations (one for each language) to be made.

For another thing, whether Jesus wrote the Bible or not isn't exactly relevant (though, assuming Jesus is God and the Bible is God-inspired, then Jesus did indeed 'write' the Bible); whether Christians were ordered to kill still stands. The parable is ostensibly best interpreted as representing God in the End Times ordering his enemies to be slain in front of Him; ergo, followers of God have been ordered to kill.
Universalists interpret John 3:16 to mean that God will not allow anyone to go to hell -- none shall perish but all shall have everlasting life -- starkly at odds with most other sects/denominations. Catholics interpret the story of Onan (in Gen, IIRC) to be a prohibition against birth-control practices, an interpretation not shared by a great many sects/denominations. Given a little more thought, I'm sure one could find countless other examples.

...which entirely misses the point. It is not the means of the execution that is at issue, it is the order.

Notice that Jesus effectively repeats this order:

Mark 7:
9And [Jesus] said to them: “You have a fine way of setting aside the commands of God in order to observe your own traditions! 10For Moses said, ‘Honor your father and your mother,’ and, ‘Anyone who curses his father or mother must be put to death.’"

Notice that he speaks of it without reproach; he does not condemn, repeal nor reinterpret the command of God, handed through Moses -- indeed, he laments how the commands are not being followed!

So, once again, the followers of God have been ordered to kill.

Make no mistakes: this tacit, not-directed-at-anyone-explicitly, read-between-the-lines order to kill is nonetheless and order to kill. You perhaps have a different interpretation?

Finally, let me make this point once more: Since when are Christians not ordered to kill? At it's very core, Christianity is just another blood sacrifice cult; Christians are ordered to kill the son of God -- sacrifice him -- so that his blood may cleanse them. [cf Heb 6:6 -- for an apostate believer to ask for forgiveness is to recrucify the Lord]

rosy tetra

At first I thought the passage might be implying that angels will do the slaying at last judgment. But it looks pretty clear, if you assume that it is the noble man speaking, that he is telling his 10 servants to do the slaying. It sounds like the ten servants represent the apostles, later to mean the church authorities, with some servants obviously having more power and authority than others. This is why Peter was able to “cause to be slayed� Ananias and Saphira. Peter was the most powerful church authority and was executing the command to slay those “who did not wish me to reign over them.� Apparently he could only do this in a community where the church had already established authority.

LeeBuhrul

does it not? and nowhere in NT does it say "this is the new and improved" or that it supercedes the old testament does it?

OT is just as violent as Islam, if not more. It is was fundamentalists base their bigotry and hatred for humanity on even as they speak of a personal relationship with jesus...

Rev. Timothy G. Muse

A few observations/statements:
1. It's interesting to see HOW INTENT unbelievers are to try to ascribe to believers a belief they do not hold and openly dismiss.
2. It's interesting to see how unbelievers fail to acknowledge the witness of history. (While some examples can be pointed to where some have killed in the name of Christianity, this is not the normative practice of Christians, nor are these situations looked upon as heroic examples by Christians.)
2. It's interesting to see how unbelievers fail to recognize distinctions of genre and dispensations.
3. It's interesting to see how unbelievers fail to recognize that killing serves no purpose for believers in that Christ's kingdom is not of this world! (Caveat: Civil authority is granted the sword for the purpose of preservation, protection, and the punishment of those who do wrong.)
4. It's interesting to see how unbelievers overlook Jesus' own example in telling Peter to put his sword away, for not only will God repay man according to his deeds, but Christ will not have his ministers or his people propagate his religion by force of arms.