Christianity & Pacifism

[Drew]

Re: Why are Christians mostly Republicans?

I don't care how you look at that passage, it doesn't describe a pacifist.

Even if Jesus retains the right to execute righteous (and perhaps violent) judgement at some point, how does that mean that we have that same right?

 

[Drew]

Re: Why are Christians mostly Republicans?

Revelation 19 (NASB)

11 And I saw heaven opened, and behold, a white horse, and He who sat on it is called Faithful and True, and in righteousness He judges and wages war.
12 His eyes are a flame of fire, and on His head are many diadems; and He has a name written on Him which no one knows except Himself.
13 He is clothed with a robe dipped in blood, and His name is called The Word of God.
14 And the armies which are in heaven, clothed in fine linen, white and clean, were following Him on white horses.
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.
16 And on His robe and on His thigh He has a name written, "KING OF KINGS, AND LORD OF LORDS." (Emphasis added)
​

I don't care how you look at that passage, it doesn't describe a pacifist.

How do you know that the allusion to the robe soaked in blood is not an allusion to Jesus' act of self-sacrifice on the cross?

 

[thisnumbersdisconnected]

Re: Why are Christians mostly Republicans?

How do you know that the allusion to the robe soaked in blood is not an allusion to Jesus' act of self-sacrifice on the cross?

Oh, I don't know. Could be the passage two verses before that declares " ... in righteousness He judges and wages war." Interesting you didn't ask about the potential "metaphorical value" of that statement, isn't it? You know of any pacifist that wages war?

 

[Drew]

Re: Why are Christians mostly Republicans?

14 And the armies which are in heaven, clothed in fine linen, white and clean, were following Him on white horses.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.

White horses? A sword coming out of the mouth? This is metaphor. And the fact that it is a "military" metaphor is not a compelling argument that Jesus is going to return and set His creation in order by engaging in a slayfest.

That would be entirely inconsistent with stuff that we know is not metaphorical - the instruction to love enemies, to overcome evil with, yes, love, not orgies of blood-soaked violence, and the statement that kingdom membership is characterized by rejection of the use of force (John 18:36 - the text you guys seem unwilling to deal with).

Yes, Scriptures uses military imagery at times. But we need to be careful to read it properly, especially when it is obvious, as is the case here, that metaphor is being used. It is certainly at least plausible that the point being made is that Jesus' kingdom will ultimately triumph. The fact that a military image is being used to convey this is not convincing evidence that Jesus is going to engage in widespread slaughter of His enemies. Especially when we have other reasons to believe that the way of the cross is the way of healing through love and forgiveness, not re-instantiation of the savage inter-generational bloodletting that has characterized human history.

Again, I think the problem is largely rooted in our overly simplistic approach to the Scriptures - mistaking metaphor for literal truth.

 

[Davies]

Re: Why are Christians mostly Republicans?

I won't forget them if you won't forget what Jesus and the Apostles taught and lived out.

Hi Free,

If I were in combat, and a Christian, I would pray that I would kill my enemy quickly. May God cause my aim to be lethal. That's the kind of soldier I would want next to me. I think of most Christian soldiers are Republicans (trying to keep it relevant).

- Davies

 

[Knotical]

Re: Why are Christians mostly Republicans?

Hi Free,

If I were in combat, and a Christian, I would pray that I would kill my enemy quickly. May God cause my aim to be lethal. That's the kind of soldier I would want next to me. I think of most Christian soldiers are Republicans (trying to keep it relevant).

- Davies

This reminds me of the sniper in Saving Private Ryan. The only character in the movie with a clear conscience.

 

[Drew]

Re: Why are Christians mostly Republicans?

Oh, I don't know. Could be the passage two verses before that declares " ... in righteousness He judges and wages war." Interesting you didn't ask about the potential "metaphorical value" of that statement, isn't it? You know of any pacifist that wages war?

Your sarcasm would carry more weight if you actually dealt with the John 18:36 argument.

In any event, again, the image of waging war, when used in a setting where metaphor is clearly otherwise being used, can, of course, be itself understood to be a metaphor. Yes, we have images of Jesus waging war. But, and I should really not have to explain this, this does not necessarily mean that the notion of Jesus in any sense waging violent war is actually being attested to, or otherwise endorsed. It could, repeat could be the case that the "war" image is being used to describe a victory attained by Jesus through entirely non-violent means.

That is the nature of metaphor.

 

[jasoncran]

Re: Why are Christians mostly Republicans?

ok ,drew, when he returns what will he do? shake hands with the lost and saved and not judge them? uhm jesus did say in revalation that a certain false prophet would be slain by him. and then theres annias and saphira slain by the holy ghost for lying to him. must be a metaphor too.

hardly i dont see the world running to jesus. i see the opposite. hear more and more hate him by the day. the democratic party you love so much did vote to remove god but change their mind. it was hardly a vote to return him to the platform. no democrat would bother with any reduction of abortion. here theres amendment 6 to require that florida not pay for abortion. the dems are voting no.

so the jews in the days of moses literally poked eyes out for an eye injured drew? really? i know that they never did that and its AN IDIOM OF THEIRS.

theres a rabbi that taught what that was and told jews to use that logic on the romans and jesus said not to do that. dont take vengeance on them for hurting you.law enforcement isnt vengence.

 

[jasoncran]

http://www.chabad.org/library/artic...eye-for-an-eye-make-the-whole-world-blind.htm

it was never literal. so if he talking about and eye for eye and what it was used for then what do you think of that now?

 

[Drew]

I would like to return to the passage where Jesus instructs his followers to purchase 2 swords. I will argue that the most likely intended meaning is that Jesus wants to use the swords to create the appearance of being a trouble-maker, in order to facilitate his arrest (call this interpretation "A"). Beware of any who would pre-emptively dismiss this possibility - that is a sure sign of someone who is threatened and cannot deal with challenge. Clearly, the position I am arguing for is at least possibly correct, as is the position that Jesus is telling His followers that it is acceptable to use force in self-defence (call this interpretation "B"). Which position, A or B, is better supported by the text itself, and by the broader Biblical context? Let's see.

Here is the text from the NASB:

[35] And He said to them, “When I sent you out without money belt and bag and sandals, you did not lack anything, did you?†They said, “No, nothing.†[36]And He said to them, “But now, whoever has a money belt is to take it along, likewise also a bag, and whoever has no sword is to sell his coat and buy one. [37] For I tell you that this which is written must be fulfilled in Me, ‘And He was numbered with transgressors’; for that which refers to Me has its fulfillment.†[38]They said, “Lord, look, here are two swords.†And He said to them, “It is enough.â€

Consider verses 35 and 36: Viewed in isolation (a fatal error in exegesis), these sound like a provisioning instruction - Jesus is instructing His followers to equip themselves to face future hardship. That would seem to support position B over position A. There are a number of reasons for this, which I need not get into since I am conceding the point that B seems to be a better explanation than A for the instruction to buy a sword.

However, its all downhill from here in respect to position B. What proponents of position B - that Jesus is legitimating the use of weapons - will never mention is the text that follows. Note the "For" at the beginning of verse 37. There is no doubt what this "for" means: it indicates that what follows is an elaboration of the reason for the instruction that Jesus has just given. And the reason is this: a prophecy that Jesus is to be seen as a transgressor must be fulfilled. This, by itself mind you, is enough to rule out B and affirm A: Jesus is telling us why the sword needs to be purchased. And it is not to for self-defence, it is so that Jesus will be seen as a member of an armed band of trouble-makers.

Note how this makes perfect sense in the larger context - Jesus has very good symbolic reasons for wanting the crucifixion to occur at Passover. He therefore needs to create the conditions that will stimulate the authorities to arrest Him. And being a member of an armed band is as good a means as any to assure that arrest.
At the risk of "spiking the football" on this, imagine the following ridiculous variant of the text at issue:

Buy a knife, for a prophecy needs to be fulfilled that I will be be seen as a member of that group of people who whittle wood.

It is, franky, absurd to try to argue that this text supports the use of force in self-defence. It is clear from the second part of the sentence that instruction to buy the knife has nothing to do with this whatsoever, and that the instruction is motivated by the need to fulfill a prophecy about being seen as a whittler of wood. I trust the point is clear.

But there's more. Consider verse 37: two swords are enough. If the issue were really that Jesus is outfitting his disciples with provisions, including swords for self-defence, then clearly there is no sense in setting a limit of two - presumably each person should have a sword.

The way this passage is used to support the "use of force" position is as shameless as the way modern politicians will take a statement from an opponent out of context and thereby entirely change the meaning of the original statement.

 

[Kaliani]

For some reason I can't even remember now, I had assumed Christianity by nature is pacifist because of the command 'Turn the other cheek.' (Was it even a command, btw? It just sounds so uncompromising to me.)

Oh dear. I have truly a long way to go. So many angles to consider.

 

[Drew]

For some reason I can't even remember now, I had assumed Christianity by nature is pacifist because of the command 'Turn the other cheek.' (Was it even a command, btw? It just sounds so uncompromising to me.)

Oh dear. I have truly a long way to go. So many angles to consider.

Even though I believe Jesus teaches an essentially pacifist approach, I am not sure the "turn the other cheek" teaching is intended to re-enforce a pacifistic way of living. I have read something about 1st century Jewish culture that suggests a different intended meaning. I cannot remember what that was, though.

 

[stovebolts]

Even though I believe Jesus teaches an essentially pacifist approach, I am not sure the "turn the other cheek" teaching is intended to re-enforce a pacifistic way of living. I have read something about 1st century Jewish culture that suggests a different intended meaning. I cannot remember what that was, though.

Hey Drew,
I just saw they split this topic off. Hope to jump in next week sometime!

As far as your above post in regard to turning the other cheek, here is a little study I did on those passages some time ago. Felix seemed to disagree but we are all free to evaluate it for ourselves.

http://www.christianforums.net/showthread.php?t=38307&highlight=turn+cheek

 

[Drew]

As far as your above post in regard to turning the other cheek, here is a little study I did on those passages some time ago. Felix seemed to disagree but we are all free to evaluate it for ourselves.

http://www.christianforums.net/showthread.php?t=38307&highlight=turn+cheek

Read your OP from the referenced thread. I believe you are right: to turn the other cheek was a way of declaring that you should not put up with oppression. However: while the "turn the other cheek" text may not have been originally intended to promote pacifism, this (obviously) does not mean Jesus did not advocate pacifism. Note that to suggest that in telling us that we should not tolerate oppression, Jesus is not necessarily telling us that it is acceptable to use force to respond to such oppression.

 

[Kaliani]

I am sure God doesn't condemn violence that is in self-defence but I feel that if He had His way, violence would be extinct altogether.

It can so easily become a self-perpetuating cycle, as in the Middle East. We humans are just so careless and untrustworthy that I think God prescribes violence as a solution only under extreme sufferance.

He must perpetually and painfully be aware of our tendency to glorify violence as an end in itself.

 

[jasoncran]

I would like to return to the passage where Jesus instructs his followers to purchase 2 swords. I will argue that the most likely intended meaning is that Jesus wants to use the swords to create the appearance of being a trouble-maker, in order to facilitate his arrest (call this interpretation "A"). Beware of any who would pre-emptively dismiss this possibility - that is a sure sign of someone who is threatened and cannot deal with challenge. Clearly, the position I am arguing for is at least possibly correct, as is the position that Jesus is telling His followers that it is acceptable to use force in self-defence (call this interpretation "B"). Which position, A or B, is better supported by the text itself, and by the broader Biblical context? Let's see.

Here is the text from the NASB:

[35] And He said to them, “When I sent you out without money belt and bag and sandals, you did not lack anything, did you?” They said, “No, nothing.” [36]And He said to them, “But now, whoever has a money belt is to take it along, likewise also a bag, and whoever has no sword is to sell his coat and buy one. [37] For I tell you that this which is written must be fulfilled in Me, ‘And He was numbered with transgressors’; for that which refers to Me has its fulfillment.” [38]They said, “Lord, look, here are two swords.” And He said to them, “It is enough.”

Consider verses 35 and 36: Viewed in isolation (a fatal error in exegesis), these sound like a provisioning instruction - Jesus is instructing His followers to equip themselves to face future hardship. That would seem to support position B over position A. There are a number of reasons for this, which I need not get into since I am conceding the point that B seems to be a better explanation than A for the instruction to buy a sword.

However, its all downhill from here in respect to position B. What proponents of position B - that Jesus is legitimating the use of weapons - will never mention is the text that follows. Note the "For" at the beginning of verse 37. There is no doubt what this "for" means: it indicates that what follows is an elaboration of the reason for the instruction that Jesus has just given. And the reason is this: a prophecy that Jesus is to be seen as a transgressor must be fulfilled. This, by itself mind you, is enough to rule out B and affirm A: Jesus is telling us why the sword needs to be purchased. And it is not to for self-defence, it is so that Jesus will be seen as a member of an armed band of trouble-makers.

Note how this makes perfect sense in the larger context - Jesus has very good symbolic reasons for wanting the crucifixion to occur at Passover. He therefore needs to create the conditions that will stimulate the authorities to arrest Him. And being a member of an armed band is as good a means as any to assure that arrest.
At the risk of "spiking the football" on this, imagine the following ridiculous variant of the text at issue:

Buy a knife, for a prophecy needs to be fulfilled that I will be be seen as a member of that group of people who whittle wood.

It is, franky, absurd to try to argue that this text supports the use of force in self-defence. It is clear from the second part of the sentence that instruction to buy the knife has nothing to do with this whatsoever, and that the instruction is motivated by the need to fulfill a prophecy about being seen as a whittler of wood. I trust the point is clear.

But there's more. Consider verse 37: two swords are enough. If the issue were really that Jesus is outfitting his disciples with provisions, including swords for self-defence, then clearly there is no sense in setting a limit of two - presumably each person should have a sword.

The way this passage is used to support the "use of force" position is as shameless as the way modern politicians will take a statement from an opponent out of context and thereby entirely change the meaning of the original statement.

in context then wasnt law enforcement. who went to get the bad guys in the villages? it wasnt the romans but the locals with the authority of the elders. a you and you thing.

so jesus lies to make himself look like a criminal?he tempts peter to buy a sword then tells him not use it?

 

[mcgyver]

I've read this thread through twice now...and I've got to confess that I'm scratching my head a little bit here...

How can the following be explained if Jesus Himself is a pacifist, or even taught pacifism?

1. God is the same yesterday, today, and forever...He does not change...No variation or shadow of turning.

2. Jesus is God in the flesh...

3. God repeatedly ordered His people to put other nations to the sword. In fact the very first thing God ordered His people to do after entering the promised land was to take Jericho. Can't say that God is a pacifist...

A "before the cross/after the cross" answer will simply not do, in that...well...God is the same yesterday, today, and forever.

Does Jesus desire peace? Of course He does...He is the Prince of Peace...

But then again it is written: The Lord is not slack concerning His promise, as some count slackness, but is longsuffering toward us, not willing that any should perish but that all should come to repentance. 2 Peter 3:9Does thismean then that because God desires that none perish, that none will perish? Of course not.

So then, did Jesus really teach pacifism (as pacifism is seemingly defined here)? Are His teachings really along the lines of: "If a man breaks into your house to rape your wife, give unto him your daughter also"? For that would the the pacifistic response...and of course that is patently absurd.

Maybe, just maybe, there is more to this than meets the eye...

 

[Free]

I've read this thread through twice now...and I've got to confess that I'm scratching my head a little bit here...

How can the following be explained if Jesus Himself is a pacifist, or even taught pacifism?

1. God is the same yesterday, today, and forever...He does not change...No variation or shadow of turning.

2. Jesus is God in the flesh...

3. God repeatedly ordered His people to put other nations to the sword. In fact the very first thing God ordered His people to do after entering the promised land was to take Jericho. Can't say that God is a pacifist...

A "before the cross/after the cross" answer will simply not do, in that...well...God is the same yesterday, today, and forever.

I am curious, how can the most significant event in history, an event that had and still has a profound impact on everything it touches, "simply not do"?

Regardless, if "God does not change" in the sense that are using it, where after the cross does God once again command Christians to put other nations to the sword? Jesus says to "Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you," (Matt 28:19,20 ESV) but I cannot see where he says to put other nations or even one person to the sword. In fact, I cannot see anywhere in the NT where Jesus or the Apostles ever make such a command.

What I do see is, in fact, quite the opposite. I should also point out that Matt 28:20 ends with "And behold, I am with you always, to the end of the age." What does Jesus mean by "age" and that it will come to an end?

God is the same yesterday, today and forever, but that in no way means that how he deals with creation must therefore never change. God is in the process of redeeming creation and a part of that process very much included judgment on the nations in the OT and the setting up of the Jews as a distinct people and nation through whom the Messiah would come. At the cross and resurrection, the Messiah inaugurated his kingdom. As a result, those who are his followers are those who are now set apart and through whom the power of God brings redemption and restoration. Nowhere are we told to do this through the sword.

 

[Kaliani]

If a man breaks into your house to rape your wife, give unto him your daughter also

Actually, the pacifist's response would be to non-violently RESIST the attack.

He may exhort the attacker to consider his immortal soul, offer all the money he has instead, harmlessly distract him while the wife and daughter flee the house or any number of options.

It'd take violent force to subdue a pacifist, as he is NOT co-operative. The stereotypes really don't do him justice.

 

[jasoncran]

somebody like a pacifist who sits in and will be arrested for not moving wont be moved with peaceful tactics.ie a taser or oc spray then forced into cuffs and charge also for resisting arrest.

if oc spray is used the arm bars and joint lock to move that person wont be softly applied. commands given to laydown and place the arms behind the back will be given or the suspect rushed and the arms moved into the positions needed with pain compliance.