Jesus on Non-Violence

[Butch5]

I look forward to learning more from you. I have made copies of most ante-Nicene writings into PDF form if every you need copies. So many of the copies online are still taken from the original CD I was sent 17 years ago (mistakes and all); so I edited them properly removing all format errors.

It will probably be the other way around. It seems you've been studying them longer than I have. Are you familiar with David Bercot?

 

[thisnumbersdisconnected]

An interesting thread, to be sure. However, it misses the point(s): Jesus was not a pacifist and did not embrace total non-violence, and the reality is, there is no such thing as pacifism in the first place.

The problem with pacifism is not that it's mistaken or impractical (although it is), nor that it's an illusion indulged in by people whose own safety is protected by non-pacifists (although it is), nor that non-violence has probably caused more loss of life and suffering than it has prevented (although it has) nor even that the record of pacifists in supporting brutal, corrupt and repressive regimes is at least as bad as that of the CIA (although it is). The problem with pacifism is simply that it does not exist.

What, in reality, is non-violence?

• Obviously, committing violence yourself is not non-violence!
• Hiring or encouraging others to commit violence for you also obviously cannot be termed non-violence. This includes relying on the legal system, which ultimately rests on the use of force as a last resort.
• Goading your opposition beyond endurance to the point where they respond violently is non-violence only in the most hypocritical, specious sense.
• So is obstructing the activities of others so much that they must resort to force to end the obstruction. The sit-ins of the 1960's were not non-violent in any meaningful sense.
• Putting people in the position where they either have to yield to your demands or resort to violence to stop you is emphatically not non-violence.
• Provoking a violent response in the hope of getting an over-reaction that will discredit the opposition and gain sympathy for your side is decidedly not non-violent.

The last four items on the list are calculated, manipulative, and deceptive practices. Neither Gandhi, nor Martin Luther King, nor the anti-war protestors of the 1960's were non-violent. They were skilled orchestrators of violence by others. The fact that their opponents were usually stupid enough to oblige them doesn't make the tactics any less manipulative or deceptive; in fact, often the response to an initially restrained opposition was an escalation of confrontation in order to cross the threshold into violence.

• Can you really claim to be non-violent if you engage in activities that you can reliably predict will end in violence?
• Can you really claim to be non-violent if you threaten someone else's position to the point where they feel they must resort to violence to protect their interests? Civil disobedience is, in fact, a form of violence.
• There is no such thing as non-violent crime.

Certainly nobody who uses drugs can claim to be non-violent. Yes, I know all about the theory that our war on drugs is really responsible for the violence, and that if we simply legalized drugs the problem would go bye-bye. But in the world as it is, drugs are banned and traffickers are violent, and if you do business with them you are supporting their violence. Could there be anything more absurd than a vegetarian who won't eat meat because she opposes harming animals, while at the same time using drugs and pretending that she's not contributing to violence?

Then there is what I like to call "pseudo-pacifism."

The only truly non-violent tactic, in the sense that it neither commits nor provokes violence, is complete non-resistance and submission to the demands of the power elite. Even something as benign as education or public health, if it threatened someone else to the point of violent action, would be forbidden. Women would have to submit meekly to rape rather than struggle to resist. And no "pacifist" I have ever heard of advocates that. Generally, what passes for "non-violence" or "pacifism" is one of the following:

• Relying on the law. This is not non-violence because if all other measures fail, the legal system will use force to achieve its ends. That's why we speak of enforcing the law.
• Maintaining a facade of pacifism while provoking the opposition to violence, or creating an intolerable obstruction that can only be removed by force, or threatening their position to the point where they feel they have to resort to violence to protect their interests. This position, as already noted, is hypocritical, manipulative, and deceptive.
• Selective pacifism: condemning U.S. military action but not violent actions against the U.S. If you take the position that someone has a cause for waging just war against the U.S., fine. Just don't pretend it's pacifism. There's no difference between a cop clubbing an anti-war protestor in 1965 and clubbing an anti-abortion protestor in 2000. Argue that one was not justified and the other is if you will, but don't pretend that one instance is violence and the other isn't. Even weirder are the pacifists who condemn the international community for not intervening in places like Rwanda. And do what? Hold anger management sessions for the Hutu mobs? No, intervention would surely have meant military violence.
• Compensatory pacifism: you oppressed us for a while, now we get to oppress you. A perfect example is the statement by Mari Matsuda when the University of Hawaii was trying to formulate a policy against hate speech: "Hateful verbal attacks upon dominant group members by victims is permissible." While Idi Amin was slaughtering thousands in Uganda in the early 1970's, some activists in America argued that it was "racist" to condemn him, because Africans had been oppressed by colonialism and now we had no right to criticize.

I don't have any problem with the use of violence in self-defense, or for taking down an oppressive regime, or for subduing criminals or protecting the weak. The United States Army paid me quite well for a long time to do precisely that, when called upon. And the fact that somebody is so insecure that they resort to violence when confronted by mere demonstrations is often (not always) a pretty good indication of who ranks where on the moral scale. But then again, I never pretended to be a pacifist. What I have a problem with is advocating, instigating, or indirectly causing violence while pretending to be non-violent.

 

[Tri Unity]

It will probably be the other way around. It seems you've been studying them longer than I have. Are you familiar with David Bercot?

Yes. I am thinking about turning Bercot's Dictionary into a website.

 

[Free]

Not having followed this thread, has anyone made the point that there is perhaps a difference in Scripture between violence against a person for the sake of violence or in committing some other crime, and violence as persecution?

To me there is no way to biblically defend a position where it is okay to use self-defense when one is being persecuted for being a follower of Jesus. But when it is violence "just because," I don't know if Scripture is so clear.

 

[Free]

Yes. I am thinking about turning Bercot's Dictionary into a website.

This can be continued via PM. Thanks.

Let's keep it on topic.

 

[Butch5]

Yes. I am thinking about turning Bercot's Dictionary into a website.

That would be cool.

 

[Tri Unity]

Not having followed this thread, has anyone made the point that there is perhaps a difference in Scripture between violence against a person for the sake of violence or in committing some other crime, and violence as persecution?

To me there is no way to biblically defend a position where it is okay to use self-defense when one is being persecuted for being a follower of Jesus. But when it is violence "just because," I don't know if Scripture is so clear.

I don't know if I understand your question properly. Being persecuted for being a follower of Jesus is a different matter; but even then some of the early fathers ran for their life to avoid being killed. Defending yourself from an attacker can take many different forms. Your body instantly goes into fight or flight mode anyway, and either one is a defense mechanism. You can defend yourself by running, by persuasion, by attack, or by playing dead. Paul seems to have opted for playing possum in Acts 14:19. David decided to act as though he was insane to save his life (1 Samuel 21:13, 14). I am somewhat embarrassed to say that I have tried this option once myself. It saved me! What lengths we take to defend ourselves is another consideration, as we all take measures to defend ourselves, whether consciously or subconsciously.

 

[Drew]

Only superficially.

Incorrect.

 

[Drew]

This logic, again, has derailed you. You are trusting in your logic in spite that neither the scriptures nor history supports your view.

1. The scriptures never teach that we are to disengage from political involvement. If I am mistaken, then please provide the relevant scriptural arguments. What you say here is a simple statement - you need to back it up with an actual scriptural argument.

2. You continue to accord what appears to be "inspired authority" to certain writers who did not write actual scripture. Can you please explain this? Surely you would agree that scripture is inspired scripture and that the early fathers, like anyone else could be mistaken.

3. There is perhaps no specific Biblica text that advocates political involvement in a direct sense. But the mandate is clear: we are to teach the nations to obey Jesus. It simply makes no sense to entirely disengage from what is likely the key forum for doing this - the domain of government. It is governments that determine how societies are run, how justice is delivered, how the poor are looked after, etc. Surely we Christians need to be a voice in determining these things. Otherwise, we are simply letting other value systems determine what our society actually looks like.

 

[Butch5]

Incorrect.

1. The scriptures never teach that we are to disengage from political involvement. If I am mistaken, then please provide the relevant scriptural arguments. What you say here is a simple statement - you need to back it up with an actual scriptural argument.

2. You continue to accord what appears to be "inspired authority" to certain writers who did not write actual scripture. Can you please explain this? Surely you would agree that scripture is inspired scripture and that the early fathers, like anyone else could be mistaken.

3. There is perhaps no specific Biblica text that advocates political involvement in a direct sense. But the mandate is clear: we are to teach the nations to obey Jesus. It simply makes no sense to entirely disengage from what is likely the key forum for doing this - the domain of government. It is governments that determine how societies are run, how justice is delivered, how the poor are looked after, etc. Surely we Christians need to be a voice in determining these things. Otherwise, we are simply letting other value systems determine what our society actually looks like.

Hi Drew,

I'd be interested in hearing your take on Paul's words in 2 Corinthians 6, don't be unequqlly yoked with unbelievers.

 

[Drew]

A commitment to the political process is accomadating and in tacit agreement with war; brothels; drug houses, pre-marital sex; homosexuality; evolution; atheism; capitalism; globalism; usury; slavery (ot the third world), etc, etc.

This is obviously not true and the logic is clear:

1. Someone is going to determine how government is run - what rights people will have, how the poor are cared for, how health care is run, if and how war is waged, etc.

2. Jesus came into the world and, in teachings such as the Sermon on the Mount, He explained to us the basic "Kingdom of God" principles that work to create a just, compassionate, and humane world.

3. You are basically saying: Let's restrict the application of these principles to the domain of inter-personal relationships and make no effort to reshape the institutions of our world that play such an important role in determining how the world is actually run.

4. This is effectively an abdication of our mandate to "teach the nations to obey Jesus" - how can we be fully obedient to this mandate if we remain entirely silent in respect to determining how society actually functions?

 

[Butch5]

This is obviously not true and the logic is clear:

1. Someone is going to determine how government is run - what rights people will have, how the poor are cared for, how health care is run, if and how war is waged, etc.

2. Jesus came into the world and, in teachings such as the Sermon on the Mount, He explained to us the basic "Kingdom of God" principles that work to create a just, compassionate, and humane world.

3. You are basically saying: Let's restrict the application of these principles to the domain of inter-personal relationships and make no effort to reshape the institutions of our world that play such an important role in determining how the world is actually run.

4. This is effectively an abdication of our mandate to "teach the nations to obey Jesus" - how can we be fully obedient to this mandate if we remain entirely silent in respect to determining how society actually functions?

Why do you suppose that Jesus didn't send His disciples to the magistrates and kings then rather than to the common people? He could have sent them to the ruling authorites in order to institute the Christian religion among the leadership which would server the very purpose you're proposing, yet Jesus did the exact opposite, He sent them to the common man. The early Christians understood this difference as Tertullian writes,

Yes, and the Caesars too would have believed on Christ, if either the Caesars had not been necessary for the world, or if Christians could have been Caesars.

 

[Drew]

You vote for institutions that uphold every ungodly practice, and you think that you will escape judgment for this dual-value system.

I humbly suggest that the one who is in greater peril of judgement is the one who sits on the sidelines and lets the enemies of the kingdom determine how the world is run. You appear to entirely ignore the possibility of a mode of political involvement where the Christian acts as a voice for change - advocating for adoption of kingdom of God principle and speaking out against governmental behaviours - such as aggressive war as just one example - that work against the advancement of the Kingdom of God.

 

[Grazer]

I humbly suggest that the one who is in greater peril of judgement is the one who sits on the sidelines and lets the enemies of the kingdom determine how the world is run. You appear to entirely ignore the possibility of a mode of political involvement where the Christian acts as a voice for change - advocating for adoption of kingdom of God principle and speaking out against governmental behaviours - such as aggressive war as just one example - that work against the advancement of the Kingdom of God.

Absolutely

 

[Drew]

Why do you suppose that Jesus didn't send His disciples to the magistrates and kings then rather than to the common people?

I am not sure you are correct in this assertion. When Jesus instructs us (in the Great Commission) to "teach the nations", I take this as an implicit instruction to bring Kingdom of God principles to the "authorities".

Besides, we have things like this: When facing Pilate on the evening preceding His death, Jesus identifies Himself with the "son of Man" character "coming on the clouds" from Daniel 7. This cannot be a coincidence. What happens to the Son of Man character from Daniel 7?:

“I kept looking in the night visions,
And behold, with the clouds of heaven
One like a Son of Man was coming,
And He came up to the Ancient of Days
And was presented before Him.
14 “And to Him was given dominion,
Glory and a kingdom,
That all the peoples, nations and men of every [l]language
Might serve Him.
His dominion is an everlasting dominion
Which will not pass away;
And His kingdom is one
Which will not be destroyed

Pilate surely took the point - Jesus is claiming to be a king over all the world!

Now if Jesus is a king, it stretches credulity to imagine we, as kingdom subjects, are not supposed to work to implement that kingdom. And I do not see how that can be done if we entirely concede the domain of government to those who do not recognize the kingship authority of Jesus.

There are other arguments I can make about all this. Hopefully later.

 

[Free]

I don't know if I understand your question properly. Being persecuted for being a follower of Jesus is a different matter; but even then some of the early fathers ran for their life to avoid being killed.

And that was my point. It really does no good in such a discussion if this distinction isn't made at the outset. It could very well be that some are arguing that self-defense in all situations is okay and others are arguing that under no circumstance should we use self-defense.

 

[Drew]

Actually, it does. Everyone has heard what the “greatest†commandment is, but what is the “least†commandment that Messiah mentioned in Matt 5:19? The sages of Israel say the least of the commandments is Deut 22:6-7 If a bird's nest happens to be before you along the way, in any tree or on the ground, with young ones or eggs, with the mother sitting on the young or on the eggs, you shall not take the mother with the young; you shall surely let the mother go, and take the young for yourself, that it may be well with you and that you may prolong your days.

The point remains: The absence of a direct commandment of the form "you shall not use violence" is not a very good argument for the legitimate use of violence.

Expecting that every Biblical principle to be underwritten by a specific "verse" is very common. However, this is simply not how the Bible works; While there are, of course, many instances of some direct command, or instruction, is given to us, we also need to look for underlying themes, and doctrines that are present only implicitly.

 

[WIP]

Why do you suppose that Jesus didn't send His disciples to the magistrates and kings then rather than to the common people? He could have sent them to the ruling authorites in order to institute the Christian religion among the leadership which would server the very purpose you're proposing, yet Jesus did the exact opposite, He sent them to the common man. The early Christians understood this difference as Tertullian writes,

Yes, and the Caesars too would have believed on Christ, if either the Caesars had not been necessary for the world, or if Christians could have been Caesars.

Jesus personally addressed the ruling authority. He referred to them as "hypocrites" and "brood of vipers." Perhaps after trying to get through to them with no avail, he sent his disciples into the world instead?

 

[Drew]

JESUS is not a Pacifist.
By Darren Morrison
The Jesus of the Bible, the one that the four gospels testify about, was not a pacifist. The liberal churches tout Jesus as being some feminine pacifist.

Oh boy, I was worried we might get something like this.

It would be really nice for a change if we could have a discussion without all the demonizing language. Right off the bat, this post takes the low road by implying to be a pacifist makes someone less than a "real man".

Let’s look at the actions of our Lord and savior. Matthew 21:12. And Jesus went into the temple of God, and cast out all them that sold and bought in the temple, and overthrew the tables of the moneychangers, and the seats of them that sold doves, 13. And said unto them, It is written, My house shall be called the house of prayer; but ye have made it a den of thieves. Jesus overturned the tables; that is an act of violence. He threw people out of the temple.

All true of course. But I suggest it is clear that in this episode Jesus is acting symbolically - His exaggerated and arguably "violent" actions constitute a carefully crafted "political" statement about the corruption of the Jewish leadership of Jesus' day.

Jesus is acting here - trying to make a point through symbollic actions. This behaviour is hardly the basis for building a theology of the use of violence.

Luke 22:36. Then said he unto them, But now, he that hath a purse, let him take it, and likewise his scrip: and he that hath no sword, let him sell his garment, and buy one. These are the very words of Jesus and it is clear to me he is telling his apostles to buy a sword. In today’s world that would be the same as saying to buy a gun, and so I have a gun so I can protect my family.

Obviously a “superficial” reading suggests that Jesus is advocating the “right” to carry a weapon. However, the fact that such a reading is deeply at odds with other things Jesus teaches should be a tip-off that things are not as they appear. And indeed, such is the case here. When this text is understood in broader context, we realize that Jesus is not making any kind of a case for the right to bear arms (swords or otherwise).

In order to arrive at the correct interpretation, we really need to step back and ask ourselves what Jesus’ larger purpose was in this dialogue. Note the connective “for” at the beginning of verse 37. It suggests that the material which follows is an explanation or amplification on the point just made – that the followers of Jesus are to sell their coats and buy a sword. So what is Jesus’ larger purpose?

It is that He been seen as a transgressor. Jesus is intentionally orchestrating things so that the Jewish authorities will have plausible grounds for arresting Him. Of course, appearing as part of an armed band would be precisely the ideal scenario to ensure Jesus’ arrest. Remember the “for” at the beginning of verse 37. If we are to be careful students of what Jesus is saying, we need to take seriously what Jesus says in verses 37 and 38 as qualifying and explaining his statement about buying a sword. We cannot simply gloss the text and conclude “Look, Jesus is making some kind of general statement about the right to self-defence with weapons”.

In fact, this very specific focus on the intent to be seen as a transgressor is powerfully sustained by Jesus’ statement that there is prophecy that He (Jesus) must be seen as a transgressor.

Remember the incident in the temple with Jesus overthrowing the tables of the moneychangers. This is not, as many people think, merely a repudiation of the sin of materialism. It is also a shrewd provocation on the part of Jesus. By creating a ruckus in the temple, He is forcing the hand of the Jewish leaders – they cannot allow such behaviour, Jesus must be arrested soon.

This is why, in the next verse, when the disciples say they have two swords, Jesus says “It is enough.” Obviously, if Jesus ever intended for the disciples to use the swords, two swords would not be nearly enough in any kind of armed action. But it’s enough to fulfill the prophecy by making Jesus appear to be participating in a violent revolutionary movement of some kind.

Unlike the “Jesus is supporting the right to bear arms” interpretation, note how the above interpretation makes sense of the entire account. If Jesus was really making some general statement about a “right to bear arms”, how exactly does that contribute to His being numbered with transgressors? And how does that make sense of the limit of two swords? Such a “right to bear arms” interpretation makes sense of neither. So it is almost certainly an incorrect interpretation of Jesus’ statement about buying a couple of swords.

 

[Butch5]

Oh boy, I was worried we might get something like this.

It would be really nice for a change if we could have a discussion without all the demonizing language. Right off the bat, this post takes the low road by implying to be a pacifist makes someone less than a "real man".


All true of course. But I suggest it is clear that in this episode Jesus is acting symbolically - His exaggerated and arguably "violent" actions constitute a carefully crafted "political" statement about the corruption of the Jewish leadership of Jesus' day.

Jesus is acting here - trying to make a point through symbollic actions. This behaviour is hardly the basis for building a theology of the use of violence.


Obviously a “superficial” reading suggests that Jesus is advocating the “right” to carry a weapon. However, the fact that such a reading is deeply at odds with other things Jesus teaches should be a tip-off that things are not as they appear. And indeed, such is the case here. When this text is understood in broader context, we realize that Jesus is not making any kind of a case for the right to bear arms (swords or otherwise).

In order to arrive at the correct interpretation, we really need to step back and ask ourselves what Jesus’ larger purpose was in this dialogue. Note the connective “for” at the beginning of verse 37. It suggests that the material which follows is an explanation or amplification on the point just made – that the followers of Jesus are to sell their coats and buy a sword. So what is Jesus’ larger purpose?

It is that He been seen as a transgressor. Jesus is intentionally orchestrating things so that the Jewish authorities will have plausible grounds for arresting Him. Of course, appearing as part of an armed band would be precisely the ideal scenario to ensure Jesus’ arrest. Remember the “for” at the beginning of verse 37. If we are to be careful students of what Jesus is saying, we need to take seriously what Jesus says in verses 37 and 38 as qualifying and explaining his statement about buying a sword. We cannot simply gloss the text and conclude “Look, Jesus is making some kind of general statement about the right to self-defence with weapons”.

In fact, this very specific focus on the intent to be seen as a transgressor is powerfully sustained by Jesus’ statement that there is prophecy that He (Jesus) must be seen as a transgressor.

Remember the incident in the temple with Jesus overthrowing the tables of the moneychangers. This is not, as many people think, merely a repudiation of the sin of materialism. It is also a shrewd provocation on the part of Jesus. By creating a ruckus in the temple, He is forcing the hand of the Jewish leaders – they cannot allow such behaviour, Jesus must be arrested soon.

This is why, in the next verse, when the disciples say they have two swords, Jesus says “It is enough.” Obviously, if Jesus ever intended for the disciples to use the swords, two swords would not be nearly enough in any kind of armed action. But it’s enough to fulfill the prophecy by making Jesus appear to be participating in a violent revolutionary movement of some kind.

Unlike the “Jesus is supporting the right to bear arms” interpretation, note how the above interpretation makes sense of the entire account. If Jesus was really making some general statement about a “right to bear arms”, how exactly does that contribute to His being numbered with transgressors? And how does that make sense of the limit of two swords? Such a “right to bear arms” interpretation makes sense of neither. So it is almost certainly an incorrect interpretation of Jesus’ statement about buying a couple of swords.

There were so many errors I didn't even bother.