Jesus on Non-Violence

[Drew]

I'm still waiting to see where you believe the Scriptures teach this. So far you've given an opinion but I've seen nothing from the Scriptures

I have, of course, never claimed that the Scriptures teach that they are the only authoritative source. But I am free to choose to believe that they are, without any inconsistency.

 

[Drew]

Is this not a blatant rejection of the evidence that refutes your argument? I told you it wasn't the authority of the church fathers but rather the fact that it is what was taught right from the beginning.

If you can connect what the church fathers taught to the documented words of Jesus and / or Paul, I am all ears. You appear to simply assume such a connection. But prove me wrong - show me that Jesus and / or Paul held to the position to which you hold.

Or, if you have no evidence that Jesus and / or Paul hold the same position you hold, simply say so.

 

[Drew]

"Although the early fathers were not perfect in every single detail; Tertullian spoke of the common opinion shared by all Christians. Up untill 200 AD, it is shown, it was the common opinion among all Christians to have nothing to do with the affairs of state.

I have no particular reason to believe that you are misrepresenting the views of Tertullian and perhaps many other church fathers (although I thought Free had found one account where Tertullian seemed to embrace political engagement).

As I have agreed, you are free to accord authority to whomever you like. For my part, I will go with Jesus and Paul. And yes, even though I have not really yet begun to argue the position seriously, I believe they both support political engagment.

I would agree that there may be no "one-liners" to support my view. But I am prepared to argue that the overarching narrative strongly shows that Jesus is "a returning king" over a very much "this-worldly" kingdom. And I am prepared to argue that Paul was using "Caesar-language" to describe Jesus, essentially telling the world that Jesus replaces Caesar.

You guys are big on the early fathers. Well, I have agreed that the closer we get to the culture and time, the better, all things being equal. Well I do not think that approach will suit your position when it comes to Paul. And I will tell you why. Modern evangelicals think that when Paul calls Jesus "Lord", he is using the term in a "personal religious sense". I plan to argue that if we get into Paul's culture and context, we will discover that he uses the word "lord" in a decidedly political sense, as in "Jesus is Lord, thereby deposing Caesar".

We will see how this all plays out.

 

[Butch5]

[/FONT]
If you can connect what the church fathers taught to the documented words of Jesus and / or Paul, I am all ears. You appear to simply assume such a connection. But prove me wrong - show me that Jesus and / or Paul held to the position to which you hold.

Or, if you have no evidence that Jesus and / or Paul hold the same position you hold, simply say so.

I've already done so Drew. It seems to me that you only want to certain posts. I've already given you 2 Corinthian 6 for one.

Where do you suppose "ALL" of the first Christians got their teachings from?

Additionally, there is not Biblical admonition to participate in government so what is the basis of your argument?

 

[Butch5]

I have no particular reason to believe that you are misrepresenting the views of Tertullian and perhaps many other church fathers (although I thought Free had found one account where Tertullian seemed to embrace political engagement).

As I have agreed, you are free to accord authority to whomever you like. For my part, I will go with Jesus and Paul. And yes, even though I have not really yet begun to argue the position seriously, I believe they both support political engagment.

I would agree that there may be no "one-liners" to support my view. But I am prepared to argue that the overarching narrative strongly shows that Jesus is "a returning king" over a very much "this-worldly" kingdom. And I am prepared to argue that Paul was using "Caesar-language" to describe Jesus, essentially telling the world that Jesus replaces Caesar.

You guys are big on the early fathers. Well, I have agreed that the closer we get to the culture and time, the better, all things being equal. Well I do not think that approach will suit your position when it comes to Paul. And I will tell you why. Modern evangelicals think that when Paul calls Jesus "Lord", he is using the term in a "personal religious sense". I plan to argue that if we get into Paul's culture and context, we will discover that he uses the word "lord" in a decidedly political sense, as in "Jesus is Lord, thereby deposing Caesar".

We will see how this all plays out.

That still doens't mandate Christians to participate in government.

 

[Butch5]

[/FONT]
Hold on a minute. It seems like you are not really answering the question as posed. And it almost looks like you are denying reality when you suggest that your vote cannot possibly play a role.

Let me reframe the question: Suppose you live in a society composed of 100 adults of voting age, yourself included. 50 of them are Nazis and they want to enact legislation to deport all Jews. These 50 Nazis tell you that they plan on voting for deportation. The other 49 adults oppose the legislation and they tell you that they are going to vote against it. It is also a "law of the land" that, one needs "50%+1" to pass a vote.

So what do you do?

If you vote against the law, the Jews stay (since a 50-50 vote means the proposed law does not pass). If you refuse to vote, off go the Jews.

Now are you really going to tell me and the other readers that your vote won't affect the outcome? If so, please explain.

Seriously? You're going to go the if the moon is 15 degrees above the horizon and a ray of sunlight strikes the earth as 22 degree on the 5th of may, etc. Really?

OK, I think this is getting desperate but I'll answer it. The bottom line is no, I'm not voting. The Jews will be going where God determines they go. If He doesn't want them gone do you really believe 100% of the vote will get them gone?

You see this is where this always winds up, do you have faith in God. The Scriptures say that God raises up and puts down nations. If a sparrow cannot fall to the ground without His knowledge do you seriously believe the Jews in your scenario could be deported against His will?

However, you've not addressed my return question. In your scenario 45 or so of those Nazis were Christians, what if they didn't vote?

Do you still not see the damage your position does to the faith. 95% of those in Hitler's Germany claimed they were Christians. So we can easily see the effects of Christians in government. We see similar effects every time we see Christians in government. We saw the same thing in Christian England, when both sides were Christians and killing each other. We saw that same thing in the American Revolutionary and Civil wars when Christians were in government.

I mean let's look at reality here Drew. In England you had the Anglican Christians in government and you had the Puritans who wanted things done differently. As Christian dealing with Christians they surely should have been able to come to an equally agreeable settlement, right? I mean, we are to lay down our lives for our brethren, turn the other cheek, give to him who asks of you. They ended up in war killing each other. They couldn't even exist together as Christians in an "ALL" Christian kingdom, how on earth do you expect them to get along with unbelievers? Look at the American Revolutionary and civil wars. Again, both sides had Christians on them and yet they couldn't settle their differences and wound up killing one another. Yet you think that Christian can yoke themselves to unbelievers and aim for and achieve a common goal? Seriously? Think about it Drew, why would the unbeliever you're yoked with want to institute Christians values when he doesn't live by them?

 

[Butch5]

I have, of course, never claimed that the Scriptures teach that they are the only authoritative source. But I am free to choose to believe that they are, without any inconsistency.

You've still not shown me where the Scriptures teach your view.

 

[Tri Unity]

A couple of questions butch...

• What are the scriptures teaching the view of non-political involvement in the war process (or anything).

• What is the history of Christians abandoning the gospel for involvement in the political process and war? In other words, when did Christians first start becoming involved in "affairs of the state"?

• Is there any evidence that Christians from the first century fought for Rome in the sacking of Jerusalem in 70 AD?

 

[Butch5]

A couple of questions butch...

• What are the scriptures teaching the view of non-political involvement in the war process (or anything).

I believe the primary one is 2 Corinthians 6 where Paul tells the Corinthians not to be unequally yoked with unbelievers. However, there are others. We are told that it's God place to judge those outside of the church. We are told to be pilgrims in this world. In Jesus' prayer He said they were in the world but not of it. Paul said we don't war with the weapons of the world. Jesus said you can't serve two masters. There are others also.

What is the history of Christians abandoning the gospel for involvement in the political process and war? In other words, when did Christians first start becoming involved in "affairs of the state"?

That would be during Constantine's reign when he ended the persecution and began to put Christians into positions of authority.

Is there any evidence that Christians from the first century fought for Rome in the sacking of Jerusalem in 70 AD?

None to my knowledge. During this time Christians would not participate in war. As one Christian said, in our religion it is better to be slain than to slay.

 

[Tri Unity]

Following are some other scriptures that are completely ignored by political/war advocates:

• "Love your enemy and pray for those who persecute you." (Matthew 5:44; Luke 6:3, 27)

• "Do not use force against an evil man." (Matthew 5:39)

• "Do not resist evil with evil." "Forgive and you will be forgiven." (Luke 6:37)

• "Do not be anxious about your life." (Luke 12:22)

• "He who lives by the sword will perish by the sword." (Matthew 26:52)

• "In everything do to others as you would have them do to you." (Matthew 7:12)

• "Do not return evil for evil." (1 Peter 3:9; Romans 12:17; 1 Thesselonians 5:15)

• "Overcome evil with good." (Romans 12:21)

• "Beloved, never avenge yourselves, but leave room for the wrath of God; for it is written, ‘Vengeance is mine, I will repay, says the Lord.’" (Romans 12:19)

• "Alas for those …who rely on horses, who trust in chariots." (Isaiah 31:1)

I question the motives of "believers" who would dliberately defy the teachings of Jesus on such matters. On what basis can we just ignore all of these teachings in preference to a new golden scenario...

What would you do if you had the chance to change history...

What would you do if you got the chance to kill Hitler...

What would you do if you were given a chance to destroy abortion...

Either we follow the bible's clear teaching or we are challenging the authority of Jesus to be our rightful King, shouting, "We have no King but Caesar." (John 19:15)

 

[Free]

I believe the primary one is 2 Corinthians 6 where Paul tells the Corinthians not to be unequally yoked with unbelievers. However, there are others. We are told that it's God place to judge those outside of the church. We are told to be pilgrims in this world. In Jesus' prayer He said they were in the world but not of it. Paul said we don't war with the weapons of the world. Jesus said you can't serve two masters. There are others also.

There are significant problems with this argument, the least of which is taking 2 Cor 6 out of context.

2Co 6:14 Do not be unequally yoked with unbelievers. For what partnership has righteousness with lawlessness? Or what fellowship has light with darkness?
2Co 6:15 What accord has Christ with Belial? Or what portion does a believer share with an unbeliever?
2Co 6:16 What agreement has the temple of God with idols? For we are the temple of the living God; as God said, "I will make my dwelling among them and walk among them, and I will be their God, and they shall be my people. (ESV)

"Unequally yoked" doesn't appear anywhere else in the NT, classical Greek or the Septuagint, and "partnership" ("fellowship" in the KJV) is only found here in the NT. That is to say it is all rather ambiguous and we should be very careful about the application of this verse, especially in making it so broad.

Here the context is best. The context is that of idolatry. It is most likely that Paul is warning against Christians joining in idolatry with unbelievers--"What agreement has the temple of God with idols?"

As to the other problem, if we take it to it's logical conclusion, Christians should not be involved in any sort of business with unbelievers. This includes working alongside them in any sort of company, educational or health institution, environmental or aid agency, etc. We would have to have "our" companies and ways of doing things, and they would have "theirs."

But that clearly would be absurd. So it must be asked: why does it apply only to governments and nothing else?

 

[Tri Unity]

Historical quotes that are also ignored:

• "A soldier of the civil authority must be taught not to kill men and to refuse to do so if he is commanded, and to refuse to take an oath. If he is unwilling to comply, he must be rejected for baptism. A military commander or civic magistrate must resign or be rejected. If a believer seeks to become a soldier, he must be rejected, for he has despised God." Hippolytus, Apostolic Tradition, 16

• 
  [*]"Those soldiers were filled with wonder and admiration at the grandeur of the man’s piety and generosity and were struck with amazement. They felt the force of this example of pity. As a result, many of them were added to the faith of our Lord Jesus Christ and threw off the belt of military service." Disputation of Archelaus and Manes

There is a method of those who ignore the scriptures and tradition to justify war and government involvement. They completely ignore the bulk of scriptures and target a single reference that they can alter the meaning of to suit their argument. This is true of "unequally yoked". Taken on its own the scripture can be applied to any argument you wish, or specifically to idolatry; but added to the scriptures already shown it is clearly used by the Apostles in the broader sense, and not just to idolatry. These arguments and debates then become circular, as they inevitably arrive back at the same points that were first misread, and the game continues. We need to be cautious not to fall for these methods used to undermine God's word. These methods were used by philosphers to debate against Christians, and they were taken up and taught in universities through methods of debate. Here again we need to be careful not to be "unequally yoked".

 

[Butch5]

\

There are significant problems with this argument, the least of which is taking 2 Cor 6 out of context.

2Co 6:14 Do not be unequally yoked with unbelievers. For what partnership has righteousness with lawlessness? Or what fellowship has light with darkness?
2Co 6:15 What accord has Christ with Belial? Or what portion does a believer share with an unbeliever?
2Co 6:16 What agreement has the temple of God with idols? For we are the temple of the living God; as God said, "I will make my dwelling among them and walk among them, and I will be their God, and they shall be my people. (ESV)

"Unequally yoked" doesn't appear anywhere else in the NT, classical Greek or the Septuagint, and "partnership" ("fellowship" in the KJV) is only found here in the NT. That is to say it is all rather ambiguous and we should be very careful about the application of this verse, especially in making it so broad.

Of course, this is a typical response to Scripture that refutes one's doctrine. It's not as though that were the only passage.

Here the context is best. The context is that of idolatry. It is most likely that Paul is warning against Christians joining in idolatry with unbelievers--"What agreement has the temple of God with idols?"

So, are you contending then that it's OK to enjoy worldly things with the unbeliever as long as you don't serve their idols?

Oh, by the way what are the worlds idols if not power and control of others. The very things those in government seek.

As to the other problem, if we take it to it's logical conclusion, Christians should not be involved in any sort of business with unbelievers. This includes working alongside them in any sort of company, educational or health institution, environmental or aid agency, etc. We would have to have "our" companies and ways of doing things, and they would have "theirs."

Drew has already raised this argument and it has been dealt with at length.

But that clearly would be absurd. So it must be asked: why does it apply only to governments and nothing else?

Again, this has been dealt with extensively.

 

[Butch5]

Historical quotes that are also ignored:

• "A soldier of the civil authority must be taught not to kill men and to refuse to do so if he is commanded, and to refuse to take an oath. If he is unwilling to comply, he must be rejected for baptism. A military commander or civic magistrate must resign or be rejected. If a believer seeks to become a soldier, he must be rejected, for he has despised God." Hippolytus, Apostolic Tradition, 16

• 
  [*]"Those soldiers were filled with wonder and admiration at the grandeur of the man’s piety and generosity and were struck with amazement. They felt the force of this example of pity. As a result, many of them were added to the faith of our Lord Jesus Christ and threw off the belt of military service." Disputation of Archelaus and Manes

There is a method of those who ignore the scripture and tradition to justify war and government involvement. They completely ignore the bulk of scriptures and target a single reference that they can alter the meaning of to suit their argument. This is true of "unequally yoked". Taken on its own the scripture can be applied to any argument you wish, or specifically to idolatry; but added to the scriptures already shown it is claerly used by the Apostles in the broader sense, and not just to idolatry. These arguments and debates then become circular, as they inevitably arrive back at the same points that were first misread, and the game continues. We need to be cautious not to fall for these insidious methods used to undermine God's word. These methods were used by philosphers to debate against Christians, and they were taken up and taught in universities through methods of debate. Here again we need to be careful not to be "unequally yoked".

It is true and I suppose it will be true until Christ returns. It can be seen that the apostle Paul knew this when he said,

19 For there must be also heresies among you, that they which are approved may be made manifest among you. (1Co 11:19 KJV)

 

[Butch5]

Historical quotes that are also ignored:

• "A soldier of the civil authority must be taught not to kill men and to refuse to do so if he is commanded, and to refuse to take an oath. If he is unwilling to comply, he must be rejected for baptism. A military commander or civic magistrate must resign or be rejected. If a believer seeks to become a soldier, he must be rejected, for he has despised God." Hippolytus, Apostolic Tradition, 16

• 
  [*]"Those soldiers were filled with wonder and admiration at the grandeur of the man’s piety and generosity and were struck with amazement. They felt the force of this example of pity. As a result, many of them were added to the faith of our Lord Jesus Christ and threw off the belt of military service." Disputation of Archelaus and Manes

There is a method of those who ignore the scriptures and tradition to justify war and government involvement. They completely ignore the bulk of scriptures and target a single reference that they can alter the meaning of to suit their argument. This is true of "unequally yoked". Taken on its own the scripture can be applied to any argument you wish, or specifically to idolatry; but added to the scriptures already shown it is clearly used by the Apostles in the broader sense, and not just to idolatry. These arguments and debates then become circular, as they inevitably arrive back at the same points that were first misread, and the game continues. We need to be cautious not to fall for these methods used to undermine God's word. These methods were used by philosphers to debate against Christians, and they were taken up and taught in universities through methods of debate. Here again we need to be careful not to be "unequally yoked".

I think Origen addresses this point well.

Origen 185-254

Against Celcus Book 1 chapter 75

Chap. LXXV. Celsus also urges us to “take office in the government of the country, if that is required for the maintenance of the laws and the support of religion.” But we recognise in each state the existence of another national organization founded by the Word of God, and we exhort those who are mighty in word and of blameless life to rule over Churches. Those who are ambitious of ruling we reject; but we constrain those who, through excess of modesty, are not easily induced to take a public charge in the Church of God. And those who rule over us well are under the constraining influence of the great King, whom we believe to be the Son of God, God the Word. And if those who govern in the Church, and are called rulers of the divine nation—that is, the Church—rule well, they rule in accordance with the divine commands, and never suffer themselves to be led astray by worldly policy. And it is not for the purpose of escaping public duties that Christians decline public offices, but that they may reserve themselves for a diviner and more necessary service in the Church of God—for the salvation of men. And this service is at once necessary and right. They take charge of all—of those that are within, that they may day by day lead better lives, and of those that are without, that they may come to abound in holy words and in deeds of piety; and that, while thus worshipping God truly, and training up as many as they can in the same way, they may be filled with the word of God and the law of God, and thus be united with the Supreme God through His Son the Word, Wisdom, Truth, and Righteousness, who unites to God all who are resolved to conform their lives in all things to the law of God.

 

[Free]

Of course, this is a typical response to Scripture that refutes one's doctrine. It's not as though that were the only passage.

You seem to think something is wrong with my response. If so, please engage it.

So, are you contending then that it's OK to enjoy worldly things with the unbeliever as long as you don't serve their idols?

It depends what you mean by "enjoy worldly things". Are you speaking in the context this discussion or now bringing other thoughts in? I simply was addressing the context of that passage and your misuse of it.

Oh, by the way what are the worlds idols if not power and control of others. The very things those in government seek.

As does every other institution I mentioned, along with money, prestige and a host of other things.

Drew has already raised this argument and it has been dealt with at length.


Again, this has been dealt with extensively.

I raised it because it is a strong argument and I did not see a satisfactory response. If you think you have given one, please link me to it.

 

[Sinthesis]

I doubt it. Are you asking us to believe that when Jesus refers his disciples not fighting, He is not referring to armed action? That seems rather unlikely - what other mode of "fighting" would stand a chance at releasing Jesus on eve of His crucifixion.

Besides, the entire setting strongly suggests that violent action is what Jesus is talking about. Remember - He is facing off with Pilate, the representative of Rome. The interaction between Jesus and Pilate is largely about the exercise of power. This is clear from Jesus' invocation of Daniel 7 and its images of vicious beasts. Rome, and all the other beasts of that time, achieved their ends through armed might.

So all things considered, I think it is quite clear that Jesus is indeed talking about "fighting" in the sense of the use of armed means to achieve ends. Agreed, the term "fighting" by itself need not necessarily denote armed activity. But in the broader context of the interaction between Pilate and Jesus, I suggest that "armed force" is indeed what is on Jesus' mind.

Perhaps you should check to see how that particular Greek word (Strong's G75) is used elsewhere in the Bible. Just be careful not to hurt anybody as you agonize over the correct teaching of this scripture.

 

[Tri Unity]

If anyone teaches the opposite of what Christ teaches, as has been done in this thread; is that a cause for alarm? Should Christians listen to the teachings of any man who teaches the exact opposite of Christ?

Christ said:

“Love your enemy and pray for those who persecute you." (Matthew 5:44; Luke 6:3, 27)

Patriots, nationalists and war lovers will teach the opposite to Christ; they say ‘Hate your enemy, and kill those who persecute you.’ Is this the voice of a dragon that looks like a lamb? Yes!

Christ said:

“Do not use force against an evil man." (Matthew 5:39)

Patriots, nationalists and war lovers will teach the opposite to Christ; they say ‘You must force an opponent to do as you say.’ Is this the voice of a dragon that looks like a lamb? Yes! Christians have fallen for another voice other than Christ’s for long enough.

 

[Butch5]

You seem to think something is wrong with my response. If so, please engage it.

I thought it was pretty self explanatory.

It depends what you mean by "enjoy worldly things". Are you speaking in the context this discussion or now bringing other thoughts in? I simply was addressing the context of that passage and your misuse of it.

Either. Look at what you said, you said the context is idols. Well, don't Chrisitans seek the same thing as those of the world, money, power, position? Aren't these the things of governement. Paul said that coveteousness is idolotry. If Christians covet those positions it's idolotry.

As does every other institution I mentioned, along with money, prestige and a host of other things.

Isn't that what those in government seek?

I raised it because it is a strong argument and I did not see a satisfactory response. If you think you have given one, please link me to it.

Many of my posts have addressed it.

 

[Butch5]

If anyone teaches the opposite of what Christ teaches, as has been done in this thread; is that a cause for alarm? Should Christians listen to the teachings of any man who teaches the exact opposite of Christ?

Christ said:

“Love your enemy and pray for those who persecute you." (Matthew 5:44; Luke 6:3, 27)

Patriots, nationalists and war lovers will teach the opposite to Christ; they say ‘Hate your enemy, and kill those who persecute you.’ Is this the voice of a dragon that looks like a lamb? Yes!

Christ said:

“Do not use force against an evil man." (Matthew 5:39)

Patriots, nationalists and war lovers will teach the opposite to Christ; they say ‘You must force an opponent to do as you say.’ Is this the voice of a dragon that looks like a lamb? Yes! Christians have fallen for another voice other than Christ’s for long enough.

Clement of Alexandria understood.

And an enemy must be aided, that he may not continue an enemy. For by help good feeling is compacted, and enmity dissolved.