Christianity & Pacifism

[mcgyver]

Again, at text which many seem very unwilling to engage:

Jesus said, “My kingdom is not of this world. If it were, my servants would fight to prevent my arrest by the Jewish leaders. But now my kingdom is from another place

How is this anything other than a statement that it is in the very nature of membership in the newly inaugurated kingdom that the use of force is to be eschewed?

Hey Drew...saw this and will be happy to discuss it...probably be Monday though before I can get back to it.

 

[Asyncritus]

All this goes back to the thread on the Christian and politics.

The NT attitude is that a believer has no place in the system of things as they are - because until Christ comes, his disciples who follow His commandments which totally prohibit violence, may not engage in the world's conflicts - and must definitely not engage in their own personal battles.

Turning the other cheek alone finishes any idea of violent response to threat or suffering. So too does 'love your enemies'.

You have heard that it was said, "An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth". But I say to you, do not resist an evildoer. If anyone strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also. (Matthew 5:38–39)

There is a price to pay for this, and it is the disfavour of the world, and in extreme circumstances, submitting to imprisonment and/or execution if needs be.

This is the example Christ set, and I understand that the NT believers did very much the same after the resurrection.

It is unfaithful and disingenuous to pretend otherwise - no matter how many authors can be quoted in support of fighting and voting and all the other paraphernalia of human politics.

Somebody on Yahoo answers said this:

. Early Christians refused to serve in the Roman army, in both the legions and auxilia, considering such service as wholly incompatible with the teachings of Christianity. Says Justin Martyr, of the second century C.E

A careful review of all the information available goes to show that, until the time of Marcus Aurelius [121-180 C.E.], no Christian became a soldier; and no soldier, after becoming a Christian, remained in military service.” (The Rise of Christianity,

The behavior of the Christians was very different from that of the Romans. . . . Since Christ had preached peace, they refused to become soldiers.” (Our World Through the Ages, by N. Platt and M. J. Drummond, 1961, p. 125)

 

[Butch5]

No argument here...but then again where is a Christian prohibited the right of self-defense or defense of family...or for that matter even one's country?

Romans 12 is one place.

17 Recompense to no man evil for evil. Provide things honest in the sight of all men.
18 If it be possible, as much as lieth in you, live peaceably with all men.
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.
20 Therefore if thine enemy hunger, feed him; if he thirst, give him drink: for in so doing thou shalt heap coals of fire on his head.​

21 Be not overcome of evil, but overcome evil with good. (Rom 12:17-21 KJV)

 

[Kaliani]

napolean isnt well like by christians.

Oh, I know that actually.

Was just teasing. Lightening up the atmosphere.

 

[Drew]

Romans 12 is one place.

17 Recompense to no man evil for evil. Provide things honest in the sight of all men.
18 If it be possible, as much as lieth in you, live peaceably with all men.
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.
20 Therefore if thine enemy hunger, feed him; if he thirst, give him drink: for in so doing thou shalt heap coals of fire on his head.​

21 Be not overcome of evil, but overcome evil with good. (Rom 12:17-21 KJV)

I believe that we are on the same general side of the pacifism issue, but I believe that it could be argued that this text forbids vengeance, but not necessarily defence of self and / or defence of country.

 

[Sinthesis]

Again, at text which many seem very unwilling to engage:

Jesus said, “My kingdom is not of this world. If it were, my servants would fight to prevent my arrest by the Jewish leaders. But now my kingdom is from another place

How is this anything other than a statement that it is in the very nature of membership in the newly inaugurated kingdom that the use of force is to be eschewed?

It has been demonstrated to you in another thread that this passage does not support the doctrine you are trying to derive from it. While your devotion to the idea of pacifism is certainly noble, it should not eclipse a devotion to truth. The truth of the matter is that Christ is pointing out to Pilate that members of His Kingdom would defend the innocent. This need not be through violence because the idea expressed through the word 'fight' is the same as that in which we Christians 'fight the good fight'. The fact is that while Pilate was looking for any reason to release Jesus, nobody was willing to stand up for Christ, because prior to the Resurrection it was not possible for anyone to lay down their own nature for His.

 

[Drew]

It has been demonstrated to you in another thread that this passage does not support the doctrine you are trying to derive from it.

No it has not. You challenged me to explore the Biblical use of the word rendered as "fight". Granted, I have not done so yet. But if you are so confident that I have misread "fight" why are you asking me to do the relevant homework? If you already know that I have misread this word, why not simply present your case?

You have made an assertion, nothing more. The case remains to be made.

 

[Drew]

While your devotion to the idea of pacifism is certainly noble, it should not eclipse a devotion to truth.

Please do not patronize me.

The truth of the matter is that Christ is pointing out to Pilate that members of His Kingdom would defend the innocent. This need not be through violence because the idea expressed through the word 'fight' is the same as that in which we Christians 'fight the good fight'.

Not sure I follow this. But either way, you are making an assertion, not an argument.

I concede that when I read Jesus saying "if my kingdom were of this world, my disciples would fight to prevent my arrest", I assume that "fight" means "fight with force / weapons". Fair enough - that is an assumption on my part. But how do you know that this is not what Jesus is sayin?. My reading is certainly plausible on the surface. Please explain to us why you know that Jesus is not telling Pilate that the used of armed force is not the means for solving problems in the kingdom of God?

An important point of method: Giving Biblical examples of where the word "fight" is used to denote something other than "armed conflict" does not make your case. You need to make a case that "fight" as in "armed conflict" is not even a possible reading.

 

[Hitch]

Christianity & Pacifism mix as well as Christianity and Socialism.

 

[Sparkey]

Hmmmm...

. o O (Pilot, I've been delivered to you, but I'm not here to provoke you. The Priests want to use you as their cats'paw, to use your authority to do what they cannot.) (Jhn 18:31 NKJV)

Then Pilot demands an answer: "Are you the King of the Jews?" (Jhn 18:33 NKJV)

Jesus answered his question with a question of his own,
"Are you speaking for yourself about this, or did others tell you this concerning Me?" (Jhn 18:34 NKJV)

Pilot replies in kind - with yet another question, "Am I a Jew? Your own nation and the chief priests have delivered You to me. What have You done?" (Jhn 18:35 NKJV)

That's when Jesus said that his kingdom was not of this world. He answered Pilot's question about why the Jews wanted him dead. He also assured Pilot that he was talking about his heavenly kingdom, not an earthly kingdom, saying if it were, his followers would fight.

My kingdom is not of this world. Although I am King, I have no contention toward you or your position or power, Pilot, because your "kingdom" is of this world, that is, it is fleshly and destined to evaporate as the morning dew upon the grass. You have power over that which you have been given command by the Romans, but that will end. I too have power over what has been given me but my kingdom shall not end.

There is no reason for my followers (who would fight elsewise) to take up arms against you or anybodody else this day. If, on the other hand, I was in contention with you, or the Jews, assuredly they would. They are not cowards who refuse to fight, not pacifists, who take a high moral ground against all violence -- it's only that we are looking toward the fulfillment of all things, not petty control of temporary things in this world.

Why, it was just a moment or two ago that Peter cut off the ear of one of the High Priest's servant, Malchus who as sent to sieze me. I didn't rebuke my follower, but only said, "Allow this," and then healed the ear of the servant. I did chastize the priests because they came with clubs and swords to apprehend me.
​

His point was that he was NOT leading a rebellion. He was representing lawful authority (of God). Not coming to overthrow, but to set right.

Then Jesus said to the chief priests, the officers of the temple guard, and the elders, who had come for him, "Am I leading a rebellion, that you have come with swords and clubs? - Luk 22:52 NIV
​

Jesus answered, "I have told you that I am [He]. Therefore, if you seek Me, let these go their way," that the saying might be fulfilled which He spoke, "Of those whom You gave Me I have lost none." Then Simon Peter, having a sword, drew it and struck the high priest's servant, and cut off his right ear. The servant's name was Malchus. So Jesus said to Peter, "Put your sword into the sheath. Shall I not drink the cup which My Father has given Me?" - Jhn 18:8-11 NKJV

Jesus didn't say, :shocked! "Peter! Cast your sword from you!"
but instead said, :nod "put your sword into its sheath."

He cerainly implied that it was the Chief Priest and his coherts that were in rebellion and implied that it could be seen by the fact that they came armed. Peter too was armed (Jesus had previously told them "Two swords is enough," but they were not overthrowing authority. Jesus knew everything that was going to happen to him - and chose to drink the cup that his Father ordained and allow it to happen.

 

[Drew]

That's when Jesus said that his kingdom was not of this world. He answered Pilot's question about why the Jews wanted him dead. He also assured Pilot that he was talking about his heavenly kingdom, not an earthly kingdom,....

I do not agree. Here is (again) an argument that the statement "my kingdom is not of this world" has been widely misread, due to an unfortunate way of translating the greek word rendered as "of". No one ever deals with this argument - will you be the first?

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.

In addition: There are a multitude of other Biblical arguments that can be made to the effect that Jesus is a presently seated king of this present material world. Many in the church cannot, or will not, accept that this notion of splitting reality up into a "spiritual" and a "physical" domain is simply not Biblical. No Jew of the first century would understand the notion that one can be a king without being a king over this present world. We need to read the Scriptures through the eyes of those who wrote them, to the extent we can.

 

[Sparkey]

You place much emphasis on such a small preposition. Yet Jesus said his followers would fight. That isn't pacifism.

 

[Free]

You place much emphasis on such a small preposition. Yet Jesus said his followers would fight. That isn't pacifism.

Where did Jesus ever say that?

 

[Sparkey]

Where did Jesus ever say that?

Quoting Drew, "
"My kingdom is not of this world. If it were, my servants would fight to prevent my arrest by the Jews."
In other words, their heart is that of a fighter but my kingdom isn't of (or from?) this world.
In point of fact, that is exactly what Peter demonstrated when he cut the ear off of the servant of the High Priest.
That isn't the heart of a pacifist. Jesus told him to "Allow". But He didn't say, "Cast your sword from you, or any such thing.

 

[Free]

Quoting Drew, "
"My kingdom is not of this world. If it were, my servants would fight to prevent my arrest by the Jews."
In other words, their heart is that of a fighter but my kingdom isn't of (or from?) this world.

Ah, I see what you're getting at. Of course they would have fought if Jesus' kingdom were of this world--that is, if it were a worldly kingdom like the rest--as that is what the Jews expected a political overthrow of the Roman oppressors by the Messiah. But that would mean a different Messiah, a different Jesus.

Jesus' statement very much was a statement of pacifism.

 

[Drew]

Quoting Drew, "
"My kingdom is not of this world. If it were, my servants would fight to prevent my arrest by the Jews."
In other words, their heart is that of a fighter but my kingdom isn't of (or from?) this world.
In point of fact, that is exactly what Peter demonstrated when he cut the ear off of the servant of the High Priest.
That isn't the heart of a pacifist. Jesus told him to "Allow". But He didn't say, "Cast your sword from you, or any such thing.

I suggest that the following is the correct reading:

1. Jesus is a king right now, and His kingdom is a kingdom that governs this present world (This is not fully asserted in 18:36, but I think this is all Biblically defensible);

2. His kingdom is not "of this world" in the sense that its mode of operation - its way of 'doing power' - is not the same as that associated with typical worldly kngdoms. Jesus is not saying "I am king of some realm other than this present world;

3. In Jesus' kingdom (which, of course, differs from other kingdoms like Rome), the citizens do not use force to achieve end.

I believe I understand your argument: You believe (erroneously in my view) that Jesus is not claiming to be a King over this present world but rather over a "spiritual realm". So you have Jesus saying that if His kingdom were over this present world, then it would be permissible for the disciples to fight. On what Biblical basis do you conclude that His kingdom does not include this present world?

We have already seen that this particular text does not support such a view: the proper reading is "my kingdom does not orignate from this world".

Perhaps you will, in turn, ask me to 'make a case' that Jesus' kingdom is indeed over this world. Happy to do so, but prepared for a lot of material. But I would point out the following: The "normal" meaning conveyed by the statement "Fred is a King" is that Fred is indeed a king over (a part) of this present world. In other words, the notion of "kingship" has, as its clear default meaning, a state where this present world, or a part thereof, is the "thing" that is governed.

 

[Drew]

You place much emphasis on such a small preposition. Yet Jesus said his followers would fight. That isn't pacifism.

You are not dealing with the argument. Words matter, even prepositions. Can you show the error in the argument, please?

 

[Drew]

-- it's only that we are looking toward the fulfillment of all things, not petty control of temporary things in this world.

Here we have the heart of the matter - you believe that Jesus is not king of this present world, but of some secret hidden spiritual domain.

I will point out again that this is simply not Biblical - nowhere does the Bible identify a "spiritual kingdom" as somehow distinguished from a kingdom over this present world. This is, I suggest, a category that has been imposed by enlightenment dogma that was motivated to 'kick God upstairs where He belongs, so we can run things 'down here'.

I do not say this to you in particular, but this notion of a "spiritual" kingdom that is distinct from this present world is a very convenient construct for those who have motivations to "do power as usual" in this world - use force to achieve ends, plunder the planet, acquire power, and get rich.

Consider this from the gospel of Mark:

Joseph of Arimathea came, a prominent member of the Council, who himself was waiting for the kingdom of God; and he gathered up courage and went in before Pilate, and asked for the body of Jesus.

I suggest that historical / cultural research will disclose that Joseph, like others, was not thinking in terms of anything other than a "this-worldly" kingdom. And this makes eminent sense: the Jews were "creational monotheists" who, based on the text of the Old Testament, looked forward to a day when God would reign over this present world.

This whole notion that "the Kingdom of God" is some non-corporeal "spiritual" kingdom is entirely out of joint with the entire Old Testament narrative. We can explore this further if you like, but do you not think its a little strange to place Jesus in the role of a king over a domain other than this present world? What kind of a king is that? A non-threatening one, I suggest. Which is just one reason to be skeptical of the idea.

 

[Sparkey]

No, Drew. I have not said that Jesus was the king of some "spiritual" realm (although he is, he isn't limited to such).
I'm saying that Jesus is the King of your heart.
He is the King of all creation, all heaven and all earth.

You are trying to rebut a concept that I did not advance.
I apologize if it sounded like I didn't believe that Jesus is currently enthroned above all creation, all heaven and all earth. He is.

Drew: "Here we have the heart of the matter - you believe that Jesus is not king of this present world, but of some secret hidden spiritual domain."​

Harrumph!
Instead of telling me what I believe, I'd thank you in the future to ask if you have a question about MY beliefs.

 

[Osgiliath]

Originally posted by Sparrowhawke,

That's when Jesus said that his kingdom was not of this world. He answered Pilot's question about why the Jews wanted him dead. He also assured Pilot that he was talking about his heavenly kingdom, not an earthly kingdom, saying if it were, his followers would fight.

Well, that is THE WHOLE POINT, is it not? Has Christ's Kingdom somehow changed, and become "of this world"?

What were Christ's words to Peter and to all who know Him only 'after the flesh?' Can any today receive His words?

Matthew 26:52 "Then said Jesus unto him, put up again thy sword into his place: FOR ALL THEY THAT TAKE THE SWORD SHALL PERISH WITH THE SWORD."

We must admit that Christ did not say to Peter that 'Evil men who take the sword will perish with the sword.' No, Christ was talking to His own leading apostle when he said "ALL who take the sword shall perish with the sword."


There are few indeed who can receive the words Christ gave to Peter. There are few indeed who are willing to follow Christ to the cross and die with Him.

Here are a couple of other sayings of Christ that are hard to receive.

Matthew 5:38 "Ye have heard that it hath been said, An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth:
Matthew 5:39 But I tell you not to resist evil: but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also.
Matthew 5:40 And if any man will sue thee at the law, and take away thy coat, let him have thy cloke also.
Matthew 5:41 And whosoever shall compel thee to go a mile, go with him two.
Matthew 5:42 Give to him that asketh thee, and from him that would borrow of thee turn not thou away.
Matthew 5:43 Ye have heard that it hath been said, Thou shalt love thy neighbour, and hate thine enemy.
Matthew 5:44 But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you."



Those few who can receive these words will reap great spiritual rewards. They will receive no physical rewards. On the contrary, they are promised:

Matthew 10:22 "And ye shall be hated of ALL MEN for my name's sake: but he that endureth to the end shall be saved."


"All Men" does not exclude our nation. We like to think that we are a 'Christian nation.' Yet we have murdered, and continue to kill, millions of our own children in the womb, and we forbid anything that 'HINTS' of Christianity in, or on our national and state properties. And we expect God to go into battle with us? This was the thinking of the fornicating priest-sons of Eli, when they took the ark of God into battle against the Philistines (see 1 Samuel 4) "The glory had departed from Israel" (1 Samuel 4:22).


Do we really believe that simply because we are the world's only super power that 'the glory has not already departed' from us as a nation?

"Do NOT resist evil" has been replaced with "the only thing necessary for evil to succeed is for good men to do nothing." Love your enemies has been replaced with "Love your country."


It is in our very nature (carnal) to protect ourselves and others with arms if necessary is certainly a true statement. No one demonstrated this fact any better than Peter. But we are not called to succumb to 'our very nature.' We are called to "overcome" it.



1 Corinthians 2:14 ".....the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him."



Should we fight for our country? The problem for us is the same problem Christ had.

John 18:36 "My kingdom is not of this world: IF my kingdom were of this world, THEN would my servants fight, that I should not be delivered to the Jews: but now is my kingdom not from hence."


Again, is Christ's Kingdom somehow "of this world" now - that we should fight?



Where is OUR CITIZENSHIP? How does Paul feel about his earthly citizenship?

Philippians 3:20 "For our conversation [Greek = citizenship] is in heaven; from whence also we look for the Saviour, the Lord Jesus Christ."

2 Corinthians 5:20 "Now then we are ambassadors for Christ, as though God did beseech you by us: we pray you in Christ's stead, be ye reconciled to God."



Notice what Luke says,

Luke 16:13 "No servant can serve TWO MASTERS: for either he will hate the one, and love the other; or else he will hold to the one, and despise the other."


Is this statement simply about money? Of course NOT. It's about ANY "master" (Greek = "Kyrios"). And being servants (Greek = oikétēs = "domestic servants" - i.e. ambassadors) of the Living God, shall we serve TWO MASTERS?


Luke 16:13 "No servant [ambassador] can serve two masters [kingdoms = countries]: for either he will hate the one, and love the other; or else he will hold to the one, and despise the other."


If Christ had taken the view of today's Christians, He would have said, 'Well, of course my kingdom is not of this world, but that doesn't mean that I am not to do all in my power to keep evil from succeeding.' ;)