Christianity & Pacifism

[Drew]

Staff note: these off-topic posts were split from Why are Christians mostly Republicans?.

Ridiculous. First, Republican president George W. Bush fought two wars with the same-sized military Clinton left behind, which was only 40% the size it was under George H.W. Bush. GWB prosecuted those wars without increasing fighting material production -- the tanks, guns, planes and ships that make such prosecution possible. GWB never even considered instituting the draft, though the fear mongers of the left constantly raised the improbability as a ghostly certainty. Secondly, you may recall that God fought for Israel but He also encouraged them to arm themselves for protection, the best example being the first census by which God raised a 600,000 man army for His chosen people. God is the same today, yesterday and forever. Jesus is God. Jesus is not a pacifist. He desires His people to be prepared to defend themselves, which is not the same thing as being militaristic.

You are, I believe, mistaken in your assessment that "Jesus is not a pacifist" and I am quite confident Biblical exegesis supports this. And your statements about the two Presidents Bush and President Clinton miss my intended point.

Taking the second item first: I do not dispute that Democratic governments are any less militaristic than Republican ones. What I am saying is that the typical Republican citizen is more "hawkish" - and therefore more out of line with Biblical principles - that the typical Democratic citizen. Again, I have no proof of this - it is merely my anecdotal experience.

Now lets talk about God and Jesus. I trust you should know that I am perfectly aware that the God of the Old Testament encouraged military behaviour. But the Bible is not a set of timeless truths. The fact that God promoted military action in the specific context of Israel before the cross is certainly not grounds for concluding that He generally approves of military force.

To the extent that one can argue that God's "militaristic" support of Israel was a necessary, although undesirable, aspect of His control of history that leads to the cross, one can indeed agree with Jesus that membership in the newly inaugurated kingdom of God involves rejection of the use of force:

Jesus answered, “My kingdom is not of this world. If My kingdom were of this world, then My servants would be fighting so that I would not be handed over to the Jews; but as it is, My kingdom is not of this realm.

Notwithstanding the past, Jesus is saying that in the Kingdom He has just initiated, the use of force is simply not part of the kingdom agenda.

I made this argument in another thread and there was no response to it. I think I know why.

This "God is the same then, now, and forever" is an appealing slogan, but it is not really correct in the sense that matters here. Yes, God's character does not change. But that does not mean that what He is doing in the world remains consistent over all history - it clearly does not. As just one example: the Law of Moses has been rescinded.

Jesus is indeed a pacifist even though the Father may have needed to use military force under the old covenant in order to bring about His greater plan of redemption of all creation.

Consider an oncologist who reluctantly prescribes painful chemotherapy to a patient. The chemotherapy is a "necessary evil" - the oncologist has no option to save the life of his patient other than by "poisoning" him. But once the patient is fully healed, can we conclude that the doctor wants to keep giving him chemotherapy? Of course not - the goal of the original chemotherapy has been achieved and no caring doctor will subject his patient to needless pain.

I suggest the situation is analagous to the Biblical narrative - God had no choice but to use violent means to steer history in the direction that lead to the cross. But this side of the cross, the New Testament is quite clear: the use of military force is inconsistent with the newly inaugurated kingdom of God.

 

[thisnumbersdisconnected]

Re: Why are Christians mostly Republicans?

You are, I believe, mistaken in your assessment that "Jesus is not a pacifist" and I am quite confident Biblical exegesis supports this.

Your confidence is misplaced and your exegesis is quite wrong.

According to Webster’s dictionary, a pacifist is someone who is opposed to violence, especially war, for any purpose, often accompanied by the refusal to bear arms by reason of conscience or religious conviction.

While Jesus is the “prince of peace” as stated in Isaiah 9:6, He was not, and is not, a pacifist. John, in his last work and the last work of the Bible, in speaking of Jesus, declares:

Revelation 19 (NASB)
15 From His mouth comes a sharp sword, so that with it He may strike down the nations, and He will rule them with a rod of iron; and He treads the wine press of the fierce wrath of God, the Almighty.
​

Surely your are not claiming that the Jesus who returns at the Judgment is a different Jesus that walked Earth 2000 years ago? Because for Him to be a pacifist, this passage would have to represent a change of heart, and as you well know, Jesus is the same yesterday, today and forever.

He will rule the nations with an iron scepter. He treads the winepress of the fury of the wrath of God Almighty." Ecclesiastes 3:1, 3, & 8 say, “There is a time for everything and a season for every activity under the heaven…a time to kill and a time to heal, a time to tear down and a time to build…a time to love and a time to hate, a time for war and a time for peace.”

Daniel 9:26 says that “war will continue until the end, and desolations have been decreed.” Matthew 24:6-8 says, “You will hear of wars and rumors of wars, but see to it that you are not alarmed. Such things must happen, but the end is still to come. Nation will rise against nation, and kingdom against kingdom. There will be famines and earthquakes in various places. All these are the beginning of birth pains.”

Jesus Himself said, “Do not suppose that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I did not come to bring peace, but a sword. For I have come to turn ‘a man against his father, a daughter against her mother, a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law -- a man’s enemies will be the members of his own household’” (Matthew 10:34-36). “From the days of John the Baptist until now, the kingdom of heaven has been forcefully advancing, and forceful men lay hold of it” (Matthew 11:12).

And your statements about the two Presidents Bush and President Clinton miss my intended point.

Taking the second item first: I do not dispute that Democratic governments are any less militaristic than Republican ones. What I am saying is that the typical Republican citizen is more "hawkish" - and therefore more out of line with Biblical principles - that the typical Democratic citizen. Again, I have no proof of this - it is merely my anecdotal experience.

I would ask you a simple question. If this is true of liberals, how is it that, over the last 50 years when they have had undisputed control of the White House and Congress, that we have been involved in as many wars and "police actions" as we have been under Republican presidents? LBJ of course had Vietnam. Carter engaged in an undeclared and secret war against drug production and transport in Colombia, which of course carried over into the Reagan years. Clinton had Somalia and Kosovo. The problem was, all of them were more attentive to public opinion polls than they were to accomplishing mission goals and as a result screwed them all up and got men killed who shouldn't have died.

Now lets talk about God and Jesus. I trust you should know that I am perfectly aware that the God of the Old Testament encouraged military behaviour. But the Bible is not a set of timeless truths.

That borders on heretical thinking and is to be completely rejected as non-representative of Christian thought.

The fact that God promoted military action in the specific context of Israel before the cross is certainly not grounds for concluding that He generally approves of military force.

So God is not the same yesterday, today and forever? You are denying the primary charateristic of God that enables us to love and trust Him? Again, bordering on heretical, if not outright heresy. Faulty reasoning to attempt to win your point is more likely, and that too is an epic fail.

To the extent that one can argue that God's "militaristic" support of Israel was a necessary, although undesirable, aspect of His control of history that leads to the cross, one can indeed agree with Jesus that membership in the newly inaugurated kingdom of God involves rejection of the use of force:

And as I've proven above with the passages I cited directly or indirectly, that is a wrong assumption. You cannot have two opposing characters of God side by side. One of them is bad theology, and the concept of God as a pacifist is that bad theology. Done here, Drew. You've failed miserably in proving your points.

 

[Drew]

Re: Why are Christians mostly Republicans?

Your confidence is misplaced and your exegesis is quite wrong.

I am confident thay my exegesis is, in fact, correct.

According to Webster’s dictionary, a pacifist is someone who is opposed to violence, especially war, for any purpose, often accompanied by the refusal to bear arms by reason of conscience or religious conviction.

While Jesus is the “prince of peace” as stated in Isaiah 9:6, He was not, and is not, a pacifist.

He is a pacifist. John 18 makes this quite clear. Again:

Jesus answered, “My kingdom is not of this world. If My kingdom were of this world, then My servants would be fighting so that I would not be handed over to the Jews; but as it is, My kingdom is not of this realm.

Jesus is clearly asserting that it is in the very nature of citizenship in the inaugurate

Like others, you have simply not engaged this text and the associated argument.

What do you think the reader will conclude from your silence?

I will address the rest of your post shortly.

By the way, how is it, exactly, that a "Prince of Peace" is not a pacifist?

 

[Drew]

Re: Why are Christians mostly Republicans?

While Jesus is the “prince of peace†as stated in Isaiah 9:6, He was not, and is not, a pacifist. John, in his last work and the last work of the Bible, in speaking of Jesus, declares:

Revelation 19 (NASB)

15 From His mouth comes a sharp sword, so that with it He may strike down the nations, and He will rule them with a rod of iron; and He treads the wine press of the fierce wrath of God, the Almighty.

This text is clearly metaphorical. Do you seriously believe that Jesus will use a sword to slay the nations?

Clearly this text cannot be intended to convery the notion that Jesus - the Prince of Peace and the one who tells us to love our enemies no less - is going to slaughter endless millions of human being with a sword or other instrument of violence.

Even if there were not so otherwise obvious, we have the allusion to wine press to show that this text is a colourful metaphor, not a statement to be taken at face value to the effect that Jesus is a one man killing machine (as if such an idea were not obviously incorrect even in the absence of the winepress image, indicating metaphor).

 

[Drew]

Re: Why are Christians mostly Republicans?

" Ecclesiastes 3:1, 3, & 8 say, “There is a time for everything and a season for every activity under the heaven…a time to kill and a time to heal, a time to tear down and a time to build…a time to love and a time to hate, a time for war and a time for peace.â€

A time to hate? Are you suggesting that Jesus - again the one who tells us to love our enemies - would qualify that with "......except during the times designated to hate your enemies; during that time, you can kill them"

This mode of "exegeting" Old Testament texts is clearly flawed. Not every statement in the Old Testament, or in the New Testament for that matter, can be taken to be a correct statement of Christian doctrine.

In the Psalms, the Psalmist pleads to God to dash the heads of infants on the rocks. Is that something God would do in response to such a prayer? Of course not - the Psalmist is crying out for justice and expressing his inner feelings. In no way should this be taken as any kind of a legitimation to kill infants.

Job declares that "when you die, its all over". Is that correct? Of course not. Again, we need to recognize when an author is expressing his own belief, or his own feelings. Paul says he wishes certain Jews could castrate themselves. Is this the will of God? No - it is Paul using over the top language to express his frustration with them.

It cannot be overstated enough: Biblical texts need to be read with the appropriate nuancing and in light of the broad sweep of Scripture. This famous text from Ecclesiastes captures the mindset of the author, and certainly not a fundamental theological truth. If you (or others) are going to challenge me on that, be prepared to deal with other things that the author of Ecclesiastes asserts, not least that "all is vanity".

Do you believe this comes from God's mouth? Does God believe "all is vanity"?

 

[stovebolts]

Re: Why are Christians mostly Republicans?

Jesus answered, “My kingdom is not of this world. If My kingdom were of this world, then My servants would be fighting so that I would not be handed over to the Jews; but as it is, My kingdom is not of this realm.

Is Jesus King of the current age / Kingdom or is Satan?

 

[Drew]

Re: Why are Christians mostly Republicans?

Daniel 9:26 says that “war will continue until the end, and desolations have been decreed.†Matthew 24:6-8 says, “You will hear of wars and rumors of wars, but see to it that you are not alarmed. Such things must happen, but the end is still to come. Nation will rise against nation, and kingdom against kingdom. There will be famines and earthquakes in various places. All these are the beginning of birth pains.â€

This prophecy was fulfilled in first century. Either way, the fact that Jesus predicts wars is certainly not an argument that He endorses it.

 

[Drew]

Re: Why are Christians mostly Republicans?

Is Jesus King of the current age / Kingdom or is Satan?

Jesus is king of this present world - the evidence for this is overwhelming. The fact that Satan may described as the "god" of this world does not change this. "god" and King are not the same category. Besides, as stated, the evidence for Jesus present kingship is really overwhelming.

Did Jesus initiate the Kingdom of God? I cannot imagine how you could defend an answer of "no". So assuming that He did, who would you expect to be the King?

Would Jesus initiate a kingdom and then place Satan on the throne?

 

[farouk]

Re: Why are Christians mostly Republicans?

Is Jesus King of the current age / Kingdom or is Satan?

But Hebrews 2.8 reminds us that all things are not now put under His feet. 1 Thess. 4 teaches us that we await the Rapture of the church, when believers will be taken out of a condemned world.

 

[stovebolts]

Re: Why are Christians mostly Republicans?

Is Jesus King of the current age / Kingdom or is Satan?

Jesus is king of this present world - the evidence for this is overwhelming. The fact that Satan may described as the "god" of this world does not change this. "god" and King are not the same category. Besides, as stated, the evidence for Jesus present kingship is really overwhelming.

Did Jesus initiate the Kingdom of God? I cannot imagine how you could defend an answer of "no". So assuming that He did, who would you expect to be the King?

Would Jesus initiate a kingdom and then place Satan on the throne?

Jesus answered, “My kingdom is not of this world. If My kingdom were of this world, then My servants would be fighting so that I would not be handed over to the Jews; but as it is, My kingdom is not of this realm.

Not trying to argue Drew.. Just trying to work this out. How do you reconcile the tension within scripture on this?

Everyone else, sorry for side tracking the thread... I've known and respected Drew for awhile and I know his theology and well, this just kind of struck me.

 

[Drew]

Re: Why are Christians mostly Republicans?

Jesus Himself said, “Do not suppose that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I did not come to bring peace, but a sword. For I have come to turn ‘a man against his father, a daughter against her mother, a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law -- a man’s enemies will be the members of his own household’†(Matthew 10:34-36). “From the days of John the Baptist until now, the kingdom of heaven has been forcefully advancing, and forceful men lay hold of it†(Matthew 11:12).

Jesus sets father against son in the sense of them using swords to slice each other up?

Again, this text is clearly metaphorical. It seems that many seem to believe that metaphor was unknown back in the first century, as though the people of that day were too crude and unsophisticated for such things.

Of course, Jesus is not in any sense suggesting that He comes to inject even more violence into a world that is already soaked in it. He is using the sword image as a metaphor, expressing the truth that He is indeed a person over whom people will disagree strongly. And, of course, He was right. But Jesus is not suggesting that people should kill each other over Him.

 

[Drew]

Re: Why are Christians mostly Republicans?

Jesus answered, “My kingdom is not of this world. If My kingdom were of this world, then My servants would be fighting so that I would not be handed over to the Jews; but as it is, My kingdom is not of this realm.

I have dealt with this text probably 50 times. Here is the relevant argument yet again:

Note this from John 18:

Pilate then went back inside the palace, summoned Jesus and asked him, "Are you the king of the Jews?" 34"Is that your own idea," Jesus asked, "or did others talk to you about me?" 35"Am I a Jew?" Pilate replied. "It was your people and your chief priests who handed you over to me. What is it you have done?" 36Jesus said, "My kingdom is not of this world. If it were, my servants would fight to prevent my arrest by the Jews. But now my kingdom is from another place."

In verse 36, Jesus seems to be saying "My kingdom has nothing to do with earthly kingdoms, so there is no 'political' dimension to my kingdom".

As it turns out, there is a huge translation issue here. Here is the rendering of verse 36 as per the NET Bible:

Jesus replied, “My kingdom is not from this world. If my kingdom were from this world, my servants would be fighting to keep me from being 1 handed over 2 to the Jewish authorities. 3 But as it is, 4 my kingdom is not from here.

The NET version is, my sources indicate, true to the original Greek. The greek word that is rendered “from†(above in the bolded and underlined cases) has the following definition:

“a primary preposition denoting origin (the point whence action or motion proceeds), from, out (of place, time, or cause; literal or figurative; direct or remote)â€

When the word is used properly, we see that the “not of this world†reading is misleading. The intended meaning is that the Kingdom that has been brought to earth is from Heaven - that is, Heaven is the point of origin for the Kingdom that has been initiated.

Jesus is a King. Jesus' kingdom, while not from this world, is rather clearly for this world.

Now: Nobody ever actually engages this argument - no one ever challenges me on the meaning of the Greek word. Well, if I am right about the Greek word, then I suggest the argument works.

Will you be the first to actually deal with this argument?

 

[stovebolts]

Re: Why are Christians mostly Republicans?

Will you be the first to actually deal with this argument?

Sure, as long as it stays civil, which I know you do very well. Hey, I'm not above learning and iron does sharpen iron.

Just so we don't get the crazies, how about posting your exegesis in the bible study... I do tire of battle and argument and would rather just sit and discuss scripture if it's just the same to you.

 

[jasoncran]

Re: Why are Christians mostly Republicans?

drew, i refuse to entrust a sinner to do what god has called me to do. you fail epically with the idea that a goverment must have force to maintain law and order. my good freind at church is a retired IRS SPECIAL AGENT. HE HAS TOLD me numerous stories of at gun point taking men and women in for not pay taxes and also evasion. recenlty he told me of a man i worked for years ago and now deceased whom he was going to prosecute but the irs said let him go. he was failing to report millions of dollars in cash to the goverment and the lawyers for the irs said it wouldnt last in court and let him go. MILLIONS, drew, you know of them charitable donations that you claim we should pay.

force to maintain peace, yet you say no christian should do that. but you dont mind benefiting from men like the above who are forced possibly at gun point to pay up or jail. likely jail and money consficated and auctioning off his property to pay the debts.what if he resisted with violence and was shot in the process? sorry lets leave that to the sinners? it make no sense to say and teach that our women and men shouldnt dress provactively and then push that. causing temptation to sin with sex and or in this case taking a life since jesus was a pacifist

 

[thisnumbersdisconnected]

Re: Why are Christians mostly Republicans?

[/FONT][/COLOR][/FONT]
Jesus sets father against son in the sense of them using swords to slice each other up?

Again, this text is clearly metaphorical.

If you do not believe that at the time of the Judgment, families will stand divided by the cross, then there's not much I can say to you. I will say this: Judgment will come, and if the wife believes and the husband does not, he will surely be cast into hell as surely as she will ascend into heaven. Is that the same as being forced at the point of a sword? I will leave that for the condemned to answer, if they ever can. Have a blessed day.

 

[jasoncran]

Re: Why are Christians mostly Republicans?

tnd, in that context that is written and speaking as a jew. that is indeed the truth. i was almost kicked out of my grandmas house over mentiioning jesus. i made the mistake of thinking and stating that my uncle , a consertive jew, was to be buried in a church. if any know anything about jews that is the ULTIMATE insult.

 

[Drew]

Re: Why are Christians mostly Republicans?

Sure, as long as it stays civil, which I know you do very well. Hey, I'm not above learning and iron does sharpen iron.

Just so we don't get the crazies, how about posting your exegesis in the bible study... I do tire of battle and argument and would rather just sit and discuss scripture if it's just the same to you.

Great idea - I do not usually visit the 'Bible Study' area. I am curious; how are the "crazies" any more restrained there than elsewhere?

I trust you can understand what my point was. The John 18 text is often invoked to suggest that Jesus is king of some world "other" than our world. I used to read it that way. Then, someone pointed out what the Greek word that get translated (in some translations) as "of" actually means.

The thing that mystifies me is this: if I can change my position, why can't others? Clearly, if people had a basis to challenge the argument, they would. Their total silence suggests that they have no counter-argument. So why do they not accept the argument? Would it destroy them to admit that, perhaps, they have been mistaken?

It did not destroy me.

 

[Drew]

Re: Why are Christians mostly Republicans?

If you do not believe that at the time of the Judgment, families will stand divided by the cross, then there's not much I can say to you..

I never said that families will not stand divided by the cross. All I did was to point out that the image of Jesus "bringing a sword" cannot be used (legitimately, anyway) to defend the argument that Jesus was not a pacifist. It is a metaphor for how Jesus will indeed be a person over whom people will have profound disagreement.

 

[thisnumbersdisconnected]

Re: Why are Christians mostly Republicans?

[/COLOR][/FONT][/COLOR]
I never said that families will not stand divided by the cross. All I did was to point out that the image of Jesus "bringing a sword" cannot be used (legitimately, anyway) to defend the argument that Jesus was not a pacifist. It is a metaphor for how Jesus will indeed be a person over whom people will have profound disagreement.

Your opinion. Which I reject. Sorry, I don't believe it is a metaphor. You must also remember that Jesus, just before His crucifixion, told His disciples to carry a sword when going out into the world to spread the gospel. He even told them that, if they didn't have one, to sell their cloak and buy one. Pacifists don't tell anyone to buy a sword.

 

[Potluck]

Re: Why are Christians mostly Republicans?

Clearly, if people had a basis to challenge the argument, they would. Their total silence suggests that they have no counter-argument. So why do they not accept the argument? Would it destroy them to admit that, perhaps, they have been mistaken?

Just tired of making the same argument over and over and over. We've been through this on many occasions, same thing, same ideas, same posts, same this and same that. It's just a waste of time. It gets old after a while Drew. Very old and just plain tiresome. It's like a squeak oil won't fix so you ignore it.