Maybe an aggie can be of some help here. Luke tells us at the outset that he is building up his narrative from earlier sources. One of the predictable problems of doing that in a biography of a storyteller is the possibility of combining two distinct stories as if they were one story.
That's apparently what happened here. 19: 11-27 is two stories. Story I is the servants who invest with varying degrees of success, and the one who makes the most gets more at the expense of the least productive one. We see that story in
Matthew (one of Luke's sources) 25: 14-30. Obviously, Story I has nothing to do with the Temple, the rejection of Jesus as Messiah, or any of that sort of thing.
Story II, the "rejected king," is not otherwise canonical. It appears to be a historical reference. You may recall that when the Herod the Great died, his son, Herod Archelaus, went to Rome seeking the kingship his father had. A delegation of Jews also went to Rome to oppose this. Archelaus didn't get the title, but did get to rule over Judea and Samaria. He supposedly killed lots of political enemies both before and after his trip to Rome. His rule was a disaster, and led to the direct Roman rule over the area which includes Jerusalem in Jesus' time.
I find to my horror that even Wikipedia seems to know this. A chill runs down my spine.
Oh, well, finishing up. The run-together story is introduced with an explanation (19: 11) that Jesus, on his way to Jerusalem, is correcting people who think the Kingdom is coming right there and then. Since the servant-investment story has nothing to do with that, it must be the Archelaus story that's the correction. What point Jesus was making is unclear: maybe we have the beginning of something, and have lost his application of the backstory to the current situation.
In any case, there is nothing on the page that has anything to do with the Temple, the rejection of Jesus as Messiah, or any of that sort of thing. Under the circumstances, then, it appears we can answer your question,
Quote
should people be killed for not accepting Jesus as their Messiah?
Since neither story being smushed together has anything to do with the Messianic recognition problem, and the murder of political adversaries is what actually happened in one of the stories, we can conclude that the text is silent on what will be done with those who don't accept Jesus as their Messiah. My recollection is that elsewhere in the canon Jesus asked the Father to forgive those involved in his crucifixion; since he didn't say otherwise, I would have assumed he meant
everybody involved.
Edited by eight bits, 31 October 2012 - 02:02 PM.