Jesus on Non-Violence

[Drew]

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

In which post or posts have you done so, please?

 

[smaller]

Anyone who thinks God in Christ advocates non-violence probably hasn't read much of the Old Testament.

Judges 14:19
And the Spirit of the LORD came upon him, and he went down to Ashkelon, and slew thirty men

1 Kings 18:40
And Elijah said unto them, Take the prophets of Baal; let not one of them escape. And they took them: and Elijah brought them down to the brook Kishon, and slew them there.

yeah, looks like non-violence to me, not.

God is quite violent. Quite. Killing masses of people really doesn't seem to bother Him much at all.

Perhaps it's the love 'em to death scenario, Of Mice and Men in Divinely amplified tones of J. Steinbeck?

Justifiable homicide? Righteous murder? Divine justice? Chance encounters of the grisly variety?

These matters will lead one smack into theodicy. Not too many are good at it.

s

 

[Drew]

Perhaps you should check to see how that particular Greek word (Strong's G75) is used elsewhere in the Bible.

Before I make the effort to do this:

1. I trust you are not simply speculating that the word translated as "fighting" definitvely excludes the possible interpretation of fighting in the sense of physical violence. I would be surprised if your implication here is correct - the context is one where it seems very likely that Jesus would indeed be talking about fighting in the sense of physical violence. What other mode of "fighting" makes sense in this context?

2. I trust you realize that even if the G75 word is often used in a manner that has nothing to do with physical violence, this does not make your case. After all, most uses of the word "fighting" in english probably do not refer to physical violence ("I fought with my wife last night"). But that certainly does not mean that "fighting" cannot denote physical conflict.

 

[Drew]

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.

Do not be yoked together with unbelievers. For what do righteousness and wickedness have in common? Or what fellowship can light have with darkness?

I am really surprised that you do not see the problem with using this text to support your argument.

You appear to be arguing that to participate in government is to connect yourself to non-believers and that Paul instructs us against this.

Well, if you apply the same line of reasoning, you would, have to withdraw from all sorts of pursuits where close contact and collaboration with Christians was required:

1. Scientific research;
2. Medical work;
3. Engineering work;
4. Protests against social injustice;
5. Raising social consciousness about the problem of 3rd world debt;

.....and so, and so on.

It really cannot be the case that Paul is telling us to disentangle ourselves entirely from collaboration with unbelievers. Paul surely must be referring to a particular kind of connection where we collaborate in the evil that non-believers do.

Now lets be clear: Despite how hard people may wish to believe otherwise, to participate in government clearly does not require us to engage in that kind of compromise. In a free society, we can participate in government in a mode where we critique and work against acts of evil by government while at the same time embracing those aspects of governmental activity that line up with the gospel imperative.

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

Argument from silence. The fact that there is no such admonition is clearly not a valid ground to withdraw from participation in government. I could just as easily, and, of course, just as incorrectly, argue that there are no admonitions against participation in government.

 

[Drew]

Anyone who thinks God in Christ advocates non-violence probably hasn't read much of the Old Testament.

Judges 14:19
And the Spirit of the LORD came upon him, and he went down to Ashkelon, and slew thirty men

1 Kings 18:40
And Elijah said unto them, Take the prophets of Baal; let not one of them escape. And they took them: and Elijah brought them down to the brook Kishon, and slew them there.

yeah, looks like non-violence to me, not.

Your argument has a major problem - it presumes that what was true in the old covenant is true in the new. And I suggest there are many reasons to believe that generalization does not work.

Yes, God in the Old Testament advocates violent behaviour. But, and this is really important, if a credible case can be advanced as to why that was an unfortunate but necessary thing in service of bringing acts of violence (by Christians) to an end in the new covenant, then your argument does not work.

And while I will not provide the case in the present post, I believe I have, at the very least, demonstrated a key assumption that underlies your position.

Now if you can explain to us why we must believe that Christian participation in acts of violence survives the work of the cross, then you would have made your case.

 

[smaller]

[/COLOR]
Your argument has a major problem - it presumes that what was true in the old covenant is true in the new. And I suggest there are many reasons to believe that generalization does not work.

I presume we are dealing with an unchanging God.

You are welcome to claim God changed.

Yes, God in the Old Testament advocates violent behaviour.

Indeed. That fact should be quite beyond dispute unless one is inclined to make excuses for the obvious fact because they don't like the fact.

This fact is also quite well demonstrated in the N.T. as well. Here for example:

Acts 12:
21 And upon a set day Herod, arrayed in royal apparel, sat upon his throne, and made an oration unto them.
22 And the people gave a shout, saying, It is the voice of a god, and not of a man.
23 And immediately the angel of the Lord smote him, because he gave not God the glory: and he was eaten of worms, and gave up the ghost.

There are other numerous examples in the N.T. of this type of violent retribution. Ananias and Sophira.

Revelation for example is filled to the brim with ultra violence.

But, and this is really important, if a credible case can be advanced as to why that was an unfortunate but necessary thing in service of bringing acts of violence (by Christians) to an end in the new covenant, then your argument does not work.

That's kinda why I prefer the simple fact that Gods Violence is a simple fact. There is no credible argument that His Violence is not there as a continuing fact from cover to cover.

And while I will not provide the case in the present post, I believe I have, at the very least, demonstrated a key assumption that underlies your position.

Now if you can explain to us why we must believe that Christian participation in acts of violence survives the work of the cross, then you would have made your case.

I would consider the fact that death is a somewhat violent matter and that all eventually experience that type of violence. None can choose to not participate in that matter of fact either.

As to the believers approach to these matters, we all also experience tribulations as a matter of fact, and those tribulations do in fact also come from God.

There really is no way to credibly fight back against these matters. These types of adverse reactions of God to us is made to pummel our heads down and in time we learn not only to take it, but to understand that submission to God is a very good thing.

I personally do not advocate violence or participation in same as a believer. Believers should relegate their positions to the receiving end of such matters when encountered. Avoidance is even better.

But sooner or later these things tend to seek one out on a personal scale. There is temporal good that comes from participating in temporal good, temporal as it may be.

Jesus Himself really does control all matters on every side of every ledger imho.

John 17:
1 These words spake Jesus, and lifted up his eyes to heaven, and said, Father, the hour is come; glorify thy Son, that thy Son also may glorify thee:
2 As thou hast given him power over all flesh,

If one steps solidly into the arena of theodicy they will also be led to see the Divine Providence in violence and the Divine Reasons for same that are in fact beneficial on the scale of eternity.

God is not just a God of 'talk.' Very certain adverse powers have been put into play in reality by God Himself. These powers are aroused, empowered and even allowed to flourish, are judged, and are dealt with harshly and Divinely. The worthy things on the good side of the scale are tested and weighed in reaction to those powers.

This is how God does things yet today. Our hope as believers is that in the end, it's all good dog.

s

 

[Sinthesis]

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.:yes

Before I make the effort to do this:

1. I trust you are not simply speculating that the word translated as "fighting" definitvely excludes the possible interpretation of fighting in the sense of physical violence. I would be surprised if your implication here is correct - the context is one where it seems very likely that Jesus would indeed be talking about fighting in the sense of physical violence. What other mode of "fighting" makes sense in this context?

2. I trust you realize that even if the G75 word is often used in a manner that has nothing to do with physical violence, this does not make your case. After all, most uses of the word "fighting" in english probably do not refer to physical violence ("I fought with my wife last night"). But that certainly does not mean that "fighting" cannot denote physical conflict.

Please invest in the effort. Then we can discuss the various ways the passage can be interpreted, with any corresponding theological/political/judicial implications.

 

[Butch5]

Do not be yoked together with unbelievers. For what do righteousness and wickedness have in common? Or what fellowship can light have with darkness?

I am really surprised that you do not see the problem with using this text to support your argument.

You appear to be arguing that to participate in government is to connect yourself to non-believers and that Paul instructs us against this.

Well, if you apply the same line of reasoning, you would, have to withdraw from all sorts of pursuits where close contact and collaboration with Christians was required:

1. Scientific research;
2. Medical work;
3. Engineering work;
4. Protests against social injustice;
5. Raising social consciousness about the problem of 3rd world debt;

.....and so, and so on.

It really cannot be the case that Paul is telling us to disentangle ourselves entirely from collaboration with unbelievers. Paul surely must be referring to a particular kind of connection where we collaborate in the evil that non-believers do.

I'vealready addressed this, I'm not sure why it keeps coming up. Two people working together towards a goal are yoked. If a Christian is in government working with unbelievers towards the same goal they are unequally yoked. There's a difference between witnessing to the lost and working together with them towards a common goal.

Now lets be clear: Despite how hard people may wish to believe otherwise, to participate in government clearly does not require us to engage in that kind of compromise. In a free society, we can participate in government in a mode where we critique and work against acts of evil by government while at the same time embracing those aspects of governmental activity that line up with the gospel imperative.

Do you really believe that one can be a part of evil and not be evil?

Argument from silence. The fact that there is no such admonition is clearly not a valid ground to withdraw from participation in government. I could just as easily, and, of course, just as incorrectly, argue that there are no admonitions against participation in government.

It's not an argument from silence. You're claiming that a Christian can participate in government. If you have no Biblical evidence you have no case.

 

[Butch5]

This thread is 16 pages, please Drew, give us your arguments.

 

[Drew]

I'vealready addressed this, I'm not sure why it keeps coming up. Two people working together towards a goal are yoked. If a Christian is in government working with unbelievers towards the same goal they are unequally yoked. There's a difference between witnessing to the lost and working together with them towards a common goal.

Here is the problem: I am quite convinced I have done the best I can to demonstrate that your position is incorrect. And you probably think likewise.

Let me try one more time: While, of course, one can say that two people working together are thereby yoked, application of this argument to then conclude that we are not ever to work together with unbelievers is so obviously absurd, it cannot be what Paul meant. And, frankly, I suggest you need to face the fact that other readers will see this.

Here are examples of Christians "working with unbelievers towards the same goal":

1. A Christian doctor doing cancer research with unbelieving doctors;

2. A Christian engineer participating with non-Christian engineers in the development of a low-pollution motor car;

3. A Christian rescue expert working together with non-Christian rescue experts to save people from a flood.

Now Butch: it is time to own your position. If your interpretation is correct, then Christians should:

1. abandon participation in what is necessarily a "many-person societal level" effort to cure cancer;

2. abandon participation in what is necessarily a "many-person" effort to develop technologies that will save the planet;

3. abandon participation in what is necessarily a "many-person" effort to rescue people from death;

Please respond: what exactly do you have to say in response to each of these entirely legitimate examples? Are you going to suggest that we should work on all these problems in isolation from non-believers?

Are we to have "Christian only" medical schools that never share their research results with the non-Christian world, lest we "unequally yoked".

I am sorry, but I cannot even imagine how you can deal with these questions in a fashion that does not undermine your position.

But please, take your best shot.

 

[Drew]

This thread is 16 pages, please Drew, give us your arguments.

I suspect you do not agree with me that this request is highly ironic.....

 

[Drew]

Do you really believe that one can be a part of evil and not be evil?

It is self-evidently clear that it is entirely possible to work "inside" some organization, even if it is evil, in such a way as to attempt to counteract, challenge, and undermine such evil.

If the government is engaging in some evil practice, you can certainly be one of the voices from within that government seeking to stop that evil practice.

This idea that if you are "part" of a system that is generally evil, you are thereby participating in evil is simply not correct. It would, perhaps, be correct, if the only mode of activity you could engage in within that system would entail evil actions, but this is clearly not the case in democratic governments.

Example: The democratically elected government of country X wants to pass legislation to deport all Jews. Fred is an elected member of "congress". Fred gets up, addresses the "congress" and tells them that should not deport the Jews. And when the vote comes, Fred votes against the deportation of Jews.

How is Fred not challenging evil from "within the system" here?

 

[Drew]

It's not an argument from silence. You're claiming that a Christian can participate in government. If you have no Biblical evidence you have no case.

This is simply incorrect logic and I am not sure what more I can do convince you of this, other than to provide the particularization of what is a well known general principle of argument (namely that 'absence of evidence is not evidence of absence'):

The absence of some explicit command to participate in government is not grounds for concluding that we are not to participate in government.

If we consistently applied the logic you appear to embrace, we would not engage in many activities that are clearly "kingdom of God" activities, but are not explicitly commanded in the scriptures.

 

[Drew]

I presume we are dealing with an unchanging God.

You are welcome to claim God changed.

Strawman, of course. I have never claimed that God changed. I have said that what God is doing in the world has changed. There is an important conceptual difference.

1. My friend Jane is a wonderful person;
2. On Mondays, she rescues lost cats;
3. On Tuesdays, she rescues lost dogs;

Is Jane wonderful on both days? Of course she is. Does she do the same thing each day? No, she does not.

The argument you are making does not work. We can coherently assert that God is unchanging in his "goodness" even if He countenanced violence in the old covenant and forbids it in the new.

A better analogy. During 2011, cancer specialist Dr. Jones treats Mary with chemotherapy, effectively using "violence" against Mary for her best interests. On January 1, 2012, Dr. Jones realizes that the chemo has worked and that it can and must be stopped. Therefore, again for Mary's best interests, Dr. Jones changes her "rules" and commands that no "chemo violence" be directed against Mary.

 

[smaller]

Strawman, of course. I have never claimed that God changed. I have said that what God is doing in the world has changed. There is an important conceptual difference.

God never changes nor does His Dealing. He Is not a double dealer or a changing Dealer.

He always uplifts the good and resists the evil. And has from the beginning.

Trying to dissect these matters externally by observations is somewhat worthless and futile. Good and evil were always internal matters for all of us. And it has not changed since Adam.

1. My friend Jane is a wonderful person;
2. On Mondays, she rescues lost cats;
3. On Tuesdays, she rescues lost dogs;

Is Jane wonderful on both days? Of course she is. Does she do the same thing each day? No, she does not.

Jane and God do not equate. It's much simpler than that. So easy any child can understand.

The argument you are making does not work. We can coherently assert that God is unchanging in his "goodness" even if He countenanced violence in the old covenant and forbids it in the new.

The covenants of God against evil and in behalf of good have not changed either.

A better analogy. During 2011, cancer specialist Dr. Jones treats Mary with chemotherapy, effectively using "violence" against Mary for her best interests. On January 1, 2012, Dr. Jones realizes that the chemo has worked and that it can and must be stopped. Therefore, again for Mary's best interests, Dr. Jones changes her "rules" and commands that no "chemo violence" be directed against Mary.

Getting caught up in a bunch of somewhat irrelevant comparisons may be your bag. It's not that hard to understand Drew.

Malachi 3:6
For I am the LORD, I change not;

s

 

[Grazer]

This comes back to whether can God can and does change his mind and adapt. I posted an extract from Keith Ward's book Why there almost certainly is a God The quote can be found at http://www.christianforums.net/showthread.php?p=683471

Sent from my HTC Desire S using Tapatalk 2

 

[Drew]

God never changes nor does His Dealing.

The assertion that God "never changes His Dealing" is clearly incorrect, if you are claiming that God does not change the way He works in the world.

If, repeat if, you (or anyone) is suggesting this, how you can expect to be taken seriously? There is a clear distinction between the Old Covenant and the New Covenant. As just one particularity of this: before the cross, the Law of Moses was to be followed by the Jews; after the cross the Law is set aside. If I recall you believe the Law continues just as before. Well, frankly, such a position is clearly indefensible from a Biblical perspective, but I am happy to get into that again, if you like.

There is a real, clear distinction between asserting that God's nature / character does not change (something I entirely embrace) and asserting that "what God is doing" does not change.

 

[smaller]

The assertion that God "never changes His Dealing" is clearly incorrect, if you are claiming that God does not change the way He works in the world.

As stated prior, God always upholds good and works adversely with evil.

The scripture also said, by Gods Own Words, that He doesn't change, regardless of any claim to the contrary.

If, repeat if, you (or anyone) is suggesting this, how you can expect to be taken seriously?

Perhaps because some are not interested in making the observations any more than the simple facts they are.

If you want to twist the observations past simplicity how can that effort be taken seriously?

If you say God changes and scriptures say otherwise, one would have to toss one of those statements. Yours would be the obvious statement tossed in any such comparison.

There is a clear distinction between the Old Covenant and the New Covenant.

Again, so sayeth Drew. Both covenants are still fully in force.

Any casual read through Galatians 4 will reveal this to be a fact.

As just one particularity of this: before the cross, the Law of Moses was to be followed by the Jews; after the cross the Law is set aside. If I recall you believe the Law continues just as before. Well, frankly, such a position is clearly indefensible from a Biblical perspective, but I am happy to get into that again, if you like.

That would only be you having that view.

Paul certainly didn't, and sums up every command in the entire text being applicable to believers in Romans 13:8-10 in quite simple and open fashion. So simple a child could follow every jot and tittle of any command in the entire Bible.

There is a real, clear distinction between asserting that God's nature / character does not change (something I entirely embrace) and asserting that "what God is doing" does not change.

If you say the subjects that God is dealing with change, obviously that is the case.

How God deals with any given set of subjects at any given point in their subjective time exposure however still hasn't changed, nor has God.

God upholds good and resists evil. Has from the start and will continue to do so til the end.

s

 

[Adullam]

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.â€

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?

Agreed! With the new covenant comes the new way in Christ. All things have become new including how we deal with enemies...we love them into the kingdom!

 

[Drew]

Agreed! With the new covenant comes the new way in Christ. All things have become new including how we deal with enemies...we love them into the kingdom!

I am glad we agree. I think we need to continue to point out that this text does not give us the "room" to say "well, Jesus had to go to the cross, so this is a special case - one cannot have the disciples interfering with Jesus going to the Cross".

Jesus is clear: It is in the nature of kingdom-citizenship that the imperative to pacifism is vested.