Jesus on Non-Violence

[Drew]

I have repeatedly presented this bit of dialogue between Jesus and Pilate when the issue of "Christians and the use of force" comes up:

Therefore Pilate entered again into the Praetorium, and summoned Jesus and said to Him, “ Are You the King of the Jews?” 34 Jesus answered, “Are you saying this [j]on your own initiative, or did others tell you about Me?” 35 Pilate answered, “I am not a Jew, am I? Your own nation and the chief priests delivered You to me; what have You done?” 36 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.”

Now: I believe no one has ever responded to what I see as the clear implication of Jesus' statement at the end: it is in the nature of being citizens of the Kingdom of God that the use of force is rejected.

Which kingdom, exactly, do those of you who think Christians can participate in armed activity claim citizenship?

 

[nmwings]

Now: I believe no one has ever responded to what I see as the clear implication of Jesus' statement at the end: it is in the nature of being citizens of the Kingdom of God that the use of force is rejected.

Which kingdom, exactly, do those of you who think Christians can participate in armed activity claim citizenship?

You apply this question to very broad terms. But you negate the fact that the Lord commanded us into armed conflict when we first took possession of the Land, and that He was with us every step of the way. The only difference between that and what you are talking about now is that we had the pillar back then... and we do not have it now! Why don't we have the pillar with us now? Because we are in exile due to our disobedience to the Covenant.

Nowhere in Scripture does it say you cannot defend yourself or your possessions. The commandment is not to murder, but the Church has twisted that into the all-encompassing "kill."

We do not have the right (nor should we involve ourselves) in violence of any sort against the government, for the actions of our government is the righteous judgment of the Almighty. As a nation, we have scorned the commandments of our God, and thus we are getting exactly what we deserve. Yes, we DESERVE Obama and his wretched "czars!"

 

[Butch5]

You apply this question to very broad terms. But you negate the fact that the Lord commanded us into armed conflict when we first took possession of the Land, and that He was with us every step of the way. The only difference between that and what you are talking about now is that we had the pillar back then... and we do not have it now! Why don't we have the pillar with us now? Because we are in exile due to our disobedience to the Covenant.

Nowhere in Scripture does it say you cannot defend yourself or your possessions. The commandment is not to murder, but the Church has twisted that into the all-encompassing "kill."

We do not have the right (nor should we involve ourselves) in violence of any sort against the government, for the actions of our government is the righteous judgment of the Almighty. As a nation, we have scorned the commandments of our God, and thus we are getting exactly what we deserve. Yes, we DESERVE Obama and his wretched "czars!"

Actaully, Paul tells us not to defend ourselves.

19 Dearly beloved, avenge not yourselves, but rather give place unto wrath: for it is written, Vengeance is mine; I will repay, saith the Lord. (Rom 12:19 KJV)

Here is the definition of ekdikeo

1556 ἐκδικέω ekdikeo {ek-dik-eh'-o} ​

Meaning: 1) to vindicate one's right, do one justice 1a) to protect, defend, one person from another 2) to avenge a thing 2a) to punish a person for a thing

Additionally you said,

The commandment is not to murder, but the Church has twisted that into the all-encompassing "kill."

You gave no evidence to support. Tertullian writing as early as 197 AD. understood the command to be thou shalt not kill.

Tertullian First Apology, The Shows, chapter 2

Take, for instance, murder, whether committed by iron, by poison, or by magical enchantments. Iron and herbs and demons are all equally creatures of God. Has the Creator, withal, provided these things for man’s destruction? Nay, He puts His interdict on every sort of man-killing by that one summary precept, “Thou shalt not kill.â€

 

[nmwings]

Actaully, Paul tells us not to defend ourselves.

19 Dearly beloved, avenge not yourselves, but rather give place unto wrath: for it is written, Vengeance is mine; I will repay, saith the Lord. (Rom 12:19 KJV)

The context of this passage is the revenge of a slight not subject to the penalty of death, ie stealing or slander.

Additionally you said, “The commandment is not to murder…You gave no evidence to support.

‏My evidence comes from the mouth of the Lord Himself when He tells us the difference between murder and killing in Num 35:16-21 'But if he strikes him with an iron implement, so that he dies, he is a murderer; the murderer shall surely be put to death. And if he strikes him with a stone in the hand, by which one could die, and he does die, he is a murderer; the murderer shall surely be put to death. Or if he strikes him with a wooden hand weapon, by which one could die, and he does die, he is a murderer; the murderer shall surely be put to death. The avenger of blood himself shall put the murderer to death; when he meets him, he shall put him to death. If he pushes him out of hatred or, while lying in wait, hurls something at him so that he dies, or in enmity he strikes him with his hand so that he dies, the one who struck him shall surely be put to death. He is a murderer. The avenger of blood shall put the murderer to death when he meets him.

Shock of all shockers, it is the responsibility of the “Avenger of Blood†(the closest relative of the victim) to kill the murderer. But today, we think “justice†is locking murderers behind bars until they die of old age! The victim’s family gets no closure, no satisfaction, and there is no longer any deterrent to such hideous crimes. That is not justice. That is an abomination.

 

[Tri Unity]

Which kingdom, exactly, do those of you who think Christians can participate in armed activity claim citizenship?

How can you advocate political involvement but stop short of war? Politics and war are two sides of the same coin. If you are involved with one you are involved with the other. A government placed in power "for the people and by the people" goes to war "for the people and by the people". If the government in question has been sanctioned by you; then what that government does, whether it is war, or abortion or other, is being empowered with your assistance. You are an accomplice of the crimes committed by the beast. That is why Jesus said you cannot have two masters.

 

[felix]

Which kingdom, exactly, do those of you who think Christians can participate in armed activity claim citizenship?

You have a war going on in Kingdom of heaven and you must be always prepared by wearing your spiritual armor. You must fight using the sword given to you.

You must fight and have armed activity always in His kingdom. You are indeed a citizen of kingdom of Heaven. We should defend it with spiritual weapons provided by Christ.

Sent from mobile.

 

[Tri Unity]

We should defend it with spiritual weapons provided by Christ.

Absolutely. An AK-47 was not listed in our spiritual armor!

 

[SpagLard]

I really wonder where to draw the line...
In general, i'm very forgiving and not at all a violent or vengeful person,
in almost every situation i am able to turn the other cheek.

Jesus didn't resist the physical harm done to him,
and he never took revenge on any of the people that wronged God.

But i'm not sure to what extent we should follow that example ?

For instance, If someone attempts to rob you or rape you..
(both i have had happen to me :bigfrown)
Christ would have likely forgiven his attackers / the sinners and even prayed for their salvation, wanting nothing more than that they repent for their deeds.
i would like to be able to follow that example, but i simply can't..

I refuse to do nothing when someone attempts to harm me in such ways,.

Spiritual weapons just don't work like a can of mace or a kick in the groin does.

I hate to envision that God would prefer that i would have let myself be raped,
just to remain non-violent.
praying / having Faith would not have saved me in that situation .

i don't think the ideal of non-violence is worth more than ones safety and sanity..
I refused to be a victim , and would choose the same today.
I'd ask for forgiveness for my violent reaction towards my attackers afterwards though,.. and even pray for them .

 

[Tri Unity]

Spiritual weapons just don't work like a can of mace or a kick in the groin does.

I agree. I have been in this situation too, and I totally agree regarding self-defense. My response was particularly referring to "armed activity" as a citizen representing an earthly kingdom, which I believed to refer to the "armed forces" and participation in war. Self defense from an attacker is a different matter. That is not the same as preemptive strikes and "peace troops".

 

[SpagLard]

Self defense from an attacker is a different matter. That is not the same as preemptive strikes and "peace troops".

Of course the two are very different, agreed.
But re-reading parts from the sermon on the mount,
i get the feeling Jesus would not even approve of self-defense.

That is what i have trouble with,.. finding the thin line..

"You have learnt how it was said: 'Eye for eye and tooth for tooth.' But I say to you, Offer the wicked man no resistance. If anyone strikes you on the right cheek, turn the other also; if a man takes you to law and would have your tunic, let him have your cloak as well. And if anyone orders you to go one mile, go two miles with him." Mt. 5.38-41

When two (wicked) men tried to rob me, they litterally struck me repeatedly,
and i offered resistance, so i can only conclude that i went against Christ's commandment.

 

[Butch5]

The context of this passage is the revenge of a slight not subject to the penalty of death, ie stealing or slander

A slight? I don't see anything in the context of a slight. He goes on to say if your enemy is hungry feed him. It seems an enemy is someone who is guilty of more than a slight. Additionally, Paul's quoting from the Song of Moses in Deuteronomy 32. The context of that chapter is hardly a slight. In it God speaks of bringing judgment on both His people and His enemies.

‏

My evidence comes from the mouth of the Lord Himself when He tells us the difference between murder and killing in Num 35:16-21 'But if he strikes him with an iron implement, so that he dies, he is a murderer; the murderer shall surely be put to death. And if he strikes him with a stone in the hand, by which one could die, and he does die, he is a murderer; the murderer shall surely be put to death. Or if he strikes him with a wooden hand weapon, by which one could die, and he does die, he is a murderer; the murderer shall surely be put to death. The avenger of blood himself shall put the murderer to death; when he meets him, he shall put him to death. If he pushes him out of hatred or, while lying in wait, hurls something at him so that he dies, or in enmity he strikes him with his hand so that he dies, the one who struck him shall surely be put to death. He is a murderer. The avenger of blood shall put the murderer to death when he meets him.

Shock of all shockers, it is the responsibility of the “Avenger of Blood†(the closest relative of the victim) to kill the murderer. But today, we think “justice†is locking murderers behind bars until they die of old age! The victim’s family gets no closure, no satisfaction, and there is no longer any deterrent to such hideous crimes. That is not justice. That is an abomination.

Should I assume that you are living under the old covenant since that command comes from the old covenant? There is no promise of eternal life under that covenant. Additionally, that covenant is no longer in effect.


14 For he is our peace, who hath made both one, and hath broken down the middle wall of partition between us;
15 Having abolished in his flesh the enmity, even the law of commandments contained in ordinances; for to make in himself of twain one new man, so making peace; (Eph 2:14-15 KJV)

13 In that he saith, A new covenant, he hath made the first old. Now that which decayeth and waxeth old is ready to vanish away. (Heb 8:13 KJV)

11 If therefore perfection were by the Levitical priesthood, (for under it the people received the law,) what further need was there that another priest should rise after the order of Melchisedec, and not be called after the order of Aaron?
12 For the priesthood being changed, there is made of necessity a change also of the law. (Heb 7:11-12 KJV)

The Law of Moses is no longer in effect, it has ended we are to follow the New Covenant which does not allow for violence.

 

[Butch5]

I really wonder where to draw the line...
In general, i'm very forgiving and not at all a violent or vengeful person,
in almost every situation i am able to turn the other cheek.

Jesus didn't resist the physical harm done to him,
and he never took revenge on any of the people that wronged God.

But i'm not sure to what extent we should follow that example ?

For instance, If someone attempts to rob you or rape you..
(both i have had happen to me :bigfrown)
Christ would have likely forgiven his attackers / the sinners and even prayed for their salvation, wanting nothing more than that they repent for their deeds.
i would like to be able to follow that example, but i simply can't..

I refuse to do nothing when someone attempts to harm me in such ways,.

Spiritual weapons just don't work like a can of mace or a kick in the groin does.

I hate to envision that God would prefer that i would have let myself be raped,
just to remain non-violent.
praying / having Faith would not have saved me in that situation .

i don't think the ideal of non-violence is worth more than ones safety and sanity..
I refused to be a victim , and would choose the same today.
I'd ask for forgiveness for my violent reaction towards my attackers afterwards though,.. and even pray for them .

Hi SpagLard,

Jesus didn't say just accept the abuse, he told his followers to flee. This statement, however, is disconcerting.

praying / having Faith would not have saved me in that situation.

Why do you think that prayer would be of no effect? Surely God is able to protect His own.

 

[Grazer]

Of course the two are very different, agreed.
But re-reading parts from the sermon on the mount,
i get the feeling Jesus would not even approve of self-defense.

That is what i have trouble with,.. finding the thin line..



When two (wicked) men tried to rob me, they litterally struck me repeatedly,
and i offered resistance, so i can only conclude that i went against Christ's commandment.

I have trouble with the issue of self defense. If someone attacked me I would defend myself and I would defend anyone I was with. I put this story before but its relevant.

I was in a pub and got chatting to a guy in there. During the conversation I told him I was a Christian. He said " that means if I hit you, you have to turn the other cheek and let me hit it" "that's right" I replied "but you're making a massive assumption in your scenario" "Really? What's that" he said. My reply was "You're assuming you can hit the first one"

Jesus says "if anyone" he never said we should simply let them.

 

[SpagLard]

Hi SpagLard,

Jesus didn't say just accept the abuse, he told his followers to flee.

Well that was not an option in my situation,
i was on the floor and overpowered by two men.
i prayed to Christ while employing 5 years of kickboxing practice.


praying / having Faith would not have saved me in that situation.

Why do you think that prayer would be of no effect? Surely God is able to protect His own.

He did in a sense, he helped me fight them off.
Remaining passive and non-violent in that situation,.. merely depending on prayer
would have likely gotten me a worse beating if not worse.

"God helps those that help themselves (and others) " - B Franklin.

 

[Butch5]

Well that was not an option in my situation,

i was on the floor and overpowered by two men.
i prayed to Christ while employing 5 years of kickboxing practice.


praying / having Faith would not have saved me in that situation.





He did in a sense, he helped me fight them off.
Remaining passive and non-violent in that situation,.. merely depending on prayer
would have likely gotten me a worse beating if not worse.

"God helps those that help themselves (and others) " - B Franklin.

I'm not sure Ben Franklin's words carry the weight as those of the Scriptures.

I do find it rather disconcerting that many Christians don't seem to think prayer is very effective. I mean, when there is nothing they can do, such as an illness Christians claim to be laying all their faith in God. Yet, when they can react it seems that God is given the back seat. It makes me wonder where faith really is placed. If God says don't use force then He is placing Himself as our protector yet we don't seem to rely on Him for it.

 

[Grazer]

I'm not sure Ben Franklin's words carry the weight as those of the Scriptures.

I do find it rather disconcerting that many Christians don't seem to think prayer is very effective. I mean, when there is nothing they can do, such as an illness Christians claim to be laying all their faith in God. Yet, when they can react it seems that God is given the back seat. It makes me wonder where faith really is placed. If God says don't use force then He is placing Himself as our protector yet we don't seem to rely on Him for it.

Just by reading her story (and fair play to SpagLard for sharing that) God answered her prayers by giving her the strength to fight them off and get away. Or keep her calm enough to remember her training. God answers prayers however he sees necessary.

On a related note, I recommend reading language of God by Francis Collins. He recounts what happened to his daughter.

 

[SpagLard]

I'm not sure Ben Franklin's words carry the weight as those of the Scriptures.

I never said that they did.
The B. Franklin quote goes to show how i think God works through us.

I do find it rather disconcerting that many Christians don't seem to think prayer is very effective. I mean, when there is nothing they can do, such as an illness Christians claim to be laying all their faith in God. Yet, when they can react it seems that God is given the back seat. It makes me wonder where faith really is placed. If God says don't use force then He is placing Himself as our protector yet we don't seem to rely on Him for it.

Who is to say God didn't help me that night ? I sure believe he came to my aid..
If there was a non-violent option , i just know he would have shown me where to run away to,
or he would have gotten bystanders to help me instead of gawking and doing nothing...

I prayed and i survived because God allowed me to do so.
I shouted out "help me please" a couple of times, nobody but God responded.
God could have made an example out of me...
If i were totally non-violent that night , i likely wouldn't be talking to you today.

God answers prayers however he sees necessary.

Thank you. i think we have a similar understanding about this.

 

[Butch5]

Just by reading her story (and fair play to SpagLard for sharing that) God answered her prayers by giving her the strength to fight them off and get away. Or keep her calm enough to remember her training. God answers prayers however he sees necessary.

On a related note, I recommend reading language of God by Francis Collins. He recounts what happened to his daughter.

If Jesus said don't resist an evil person how is it that God's answer to prayer violates His own word? How does God answer prayer by giving someone the power to do what He's said not to do? I understand this is a touchy issue and it is a very hard one to deal with. However, the Scriptures say what they say whether we agree or not, whether that's what we want to hear or not. To me it comes down to this, do I really trust God or not? Look at Abraham, did he protect Isaac? He could have said no, but he didn't he trusted God even to the point of taking Isaac's life. Paul says that Abraham trusted God to the point that he knew God was able to raise him from the dead, do we?

 

[Butch5]

I never said that they did.
The B. Franklin quote goes to show how i think God works through us.





Who is to say God didn't help me that night ? I sure believe he came to my aid..
If there was a non-violent option , i just know he would have shown me where to run away to,
or he would have gotten bystanders to help me instead of gawking and doing nothing...

I prayed and i survived because God allowed me to do so.
I shouted out "help me please" a couple of times, nobody but God responded.
God could have made an example out of me...
If i were totally non-violent that night , i likely wouldn't be talking to you today.



Thank you. i think we have a similar understanding about this.

I can't speak for God, I just know what the Scriptures say. We can talk about experiences all day but that doesn't change the Scriptures.

 

[Grazer]

If Jesus said don't resist an evil person how is it that God's answer to prayer violates His own word? How does God answer prayer by giving someone the power to do what He's said not to do? I understand this is a touchy issue and it is a very hard one to deal with. However, the Scriptures say what they say whether we agree or not, whether that's what we want to hear or not. To me it comes down to this, do I really trust God or not? Look at Abraham, did he protect Isaac? He could have said no, but he didn't he trusted God even to the point of taking Isaac's life. Paul says that Abraham trusted God to the point that he knew God was able to raise him from the dead, do we?

It seems you're over simplifing the issue. No where does Jesus say we cannot defend ourselves from attack. Using force to get away from people who want to hurt you is far far different to taking a sword and hacking someones ear off. Blocking a punch is using force but it is not in anger or to harm but to defend. Context is vital. Attacking in revenge is what Christ was talking about in his "turn the other cheek" message. We are not to use force to defend Christ or his message. Having God command something is not the context here so your analogy is flawed.