Jesus on Non-Violence

[Butch5]

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?

Agreed, however, He still didn't send the disicples to the rulers of the world.

 

[Butch5]

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.

Hi Drew,

The Greek word for nations is "ethnos" and is also translated people or Gentiles. I don't think a case can be made on just the definition "nations". The thing is we have 1700 years of proof that Christians in government doesn't work. How much more evidence do we need? As soon as Christians began to get involved in government the faith began to suffer. Instead of dying in the name of Christ Christians began killing in the name of Christ and it's continued to this very day. We've seen the utter hatred for Christians that involvement in government has brought about. That hatred drives people away from Christ rather than towards Him. I mean Christians can't even govern among themselves without killing one another, how in the world could they possible govern in the world and still draw people to Christ? In addition to the 1700 years of history showing how governmental involvement hasn't helped the kingdom we have 300 years of early church history showing how the kingdom flourished when persecution reigned and Christians weren't involved in government. As soon as the persecution, primarily due to the Christians involvement in government ended the church suffered.

Additionally, we have to look at why there was no involvement in government for the first 300 years of church history. Where did the first Christians get the idea that Christians shouldn't partake in government? When you look at what they say it becomes clear that it is from the teaching of the apostles and the words of Jesus Himself.

 

[Drew]

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?

I also think of Jesus' encounter with Pilate.

Someone once said something like "in this encounter, we have the two fundamental modes of 'doing power' facing off with each other". I suggest this is a profound insight - we have Jesus challenging Pilate about the nature of kingship. Pilate represents the use of power and the sword, while Jesus presents a different kingdom model: "....if my kingdom were like yours, my followers would be freeing me by use of the sword...."

So it seems pretty clear to me that Jesus does have something to say to the "powers that be". Here He deals with a person in a very high position - Pilate - and challenges him about how he runs his part of the world.

 

[Drew]

Hi Drew,

The Greek word for nations is "ethnos" and is also translated people or Gentiles.

Even so, you are put in the difficult position - just like Tri-Unity - of explaining how it makes sense for Jesus to be "lord" or "king" over a set of people and yet have no interest whatsoever in having His followers seek to transform the way that those people are governed.

How do you respond?

The thing is we have 1700 years of proof that Christians in government doesn't work.

I challenge this and politely suggest you may be exercizing some selectivity in the evidence you look at. I suggest that it is relatively clear that those nations that provide the most freedom, the best justice, and the most compassion are those whose laws and institutions have been informed by Christian principles.

Can you give me one example of refugees fleeing from an ostensibly "Christian" nation to a non-Christian one?

Agreed, many bad things have been done in the name of gospel, but I suggest that the big picture shows that when "kingdom of God" principles are at least in the fight for a role in governance, you get a better outcome.

 

[Drew]

Did Jesus come to teach us about peace? Did he come to bring about world peace? The answer is no on both. Jesus is the prince of peace but did not come to bring the type of peace the pacifists talk about. Matthew 10:34. Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword.

I suggest that context shows that Jesus is speaking metaphorically; He is not advocating the use of the sword as a tool of violence. In fact, when one actually pauses to think about it, it is frankly absurd to take this statement literally. Jesus coming as an agent of violence? I am stunned and discouraged that such thinking exists in the church.

Look - if you are going to make a case that Jesus would not oppose the use of force in self-defence, or even in the defence of a nation, that's one thing. But to take this particular text literally is to buy into a concept of Jesus coming to earth in order to introduce violence and bloodshed.

It boggles the mind, frankly.

I suggest, instead, that Jesus is using this "I bring a sword" language to underscore how, thoughout time, Jesus will be a controverial figure over whom people will be divided.

I cannot imagine that He intended this statement to be taken the way you appear to take it.

 

[Drew]

You see the pacifist believe in worldly peace, Jesus is the prince of peace this is a fact. But he is not the prince of worldly peace. John 14:27. Peace I leave with you, my peace I give unto you: not as the world giveth, give I unto you. Let not your heart be troubled, neither let it be afraid. That is inner peace, where you know for sure that you will go to heaven when you die. That peace comes only from GOD and it wells up inside your soul. You see, before I was saved I had an emptiness inside a void I could not fill. Jesus filled that void with his peace. But people who live after the lust of the world have no inner peace, so they lash out and hold up peace signs.

1. You simply assert that Jesus is not the prince of worldly peace. In so doing, you are doing what so many others do - conveniently re-defining terms with no justification. Others redefine "kingdom" so that it has nothing to do with political structures (a very strange notion indeed) and here you re-define "peace" to denote an entirely inner state of affairs. Again, I will point out the obvious - you take the word "peace" as in "Prince of Peace" and simply re-define it to refer to inner peace. Now let's be clear: the fact that we do indeed get inner peace does not mean that you can legitimately do this. After all, if "peace" were to break out in Syria, there would also be inner peace. But I cannot emphasize this enough: no one would say that there is "peace" in Syria without intending to include the broader "people have stopped killing each other" sense of peace.

2. In any event, we do have clear statements about "real world peace" and its place in the kingdom of God - the stuff about beating swords into plowshares. No doubt you (and others) will want to place the fulfillment of that prophecy in the future. Well, please, make your case - I am quite convinced we are living in the time where that prophecy is supposed to be affecting the way we conduct ourselves in the world.

 

[Drew]

Now understand this, Jesus is for self-defense but he is against revenge. Romans 12:19. Dearly beloved, avenge not yourselves, but rather give place unto wrath: for it is written, Vengeance is mine; I will repay, saith the Lord. We as true Christians are not to take revenge; our Lord Jesus will take his revenge out on the wicked. Now if someone threatens you it is not a sin to protect yourself and in fact it is down right biblical. 2 Thessalonians1: 7. And to you who are troubled rest with us, when the Lord Jesus shall be revealed from heaven with his mighty angels, 8. In flaming fire taking vengeance on them that know not God, and that obey not the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ: 9. Who shall be punished with everlasting destruction from the presence of the Lord, and from the glory of his power;. You see those who do not follow Jesus he will take violent actions against them. What will I be doing when Jesus takes revenge on those in false religions, drug users, whores, abortion supporters, Marxists and other evil folks? Psalms 58:10. The righteous shall rejoice when he seeth the vengeance: he shall wash his feet in the blood of the wicked.

There is no case here. All you have done is to post texts about God / Jesus visiting arguably violent judgement on the wicked and how the righteous arguably approve. Well, maybe so. But you cannot jump to the conclusion that it is acceptable for us to do what Jesus is doing.

 

[Drew]

..., nor that it's an illusion indulged in by people whose own safety is protected by non-pacifists (although it is)

Not a valid objection, although one we often hear. It is simply incorrect logic to argue that because the pacifist is arguably "protected" by the armed forces that the pacifist thinks should be dismantled, that the pacifist is thereby a hypocrite or is being inconsistent.

The pacficist can legitimately respond that he (or she) is entirely willing to live with the consequences of pacifism. So I do not see your argument about how pacifism is " an illusion indulged in by people whose own safety is protected by non-pacifists".

In any event, the case can be advanced that while there is short-term "safety" for the pacifist in having a military to protect him or her, the long-term interests of the pacifist (and everyone else for that matter) are indeed best served by the pacifist approach. And the reason is quite simple to understand: While the use of military power may, in the short term, provide survival value, it is entirely possible that its use only re-enforces and entrenches the sad, endless, cross-generational cycle of violence be-getting more violence.

Yes, blasting the Afghans to kingdom come may indeed secure the short-term security of your country, but it only gives rise to a new generation of angry young men.

And so the sad cycle continues.

 

[Tri Unity]

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.

Firsty, our mandate is not based on DREW's philosophy, it is based on scriptural teachings. As you have recognized, there are no direct statements in scripture that back up your philosophy. You are standing alone with your pants down.

Secondly, your "philosophy" has turned the kingdom message into the cold-war between the forces of good (the Americans) and the forces of evil (the Communists, or anyone who does not represent the democratic or capitalist way). This outlook is so far removed from the gospel that it is something completely different. It is the "lamb with a mouth of the dragon".

I don't care for your philosophy to guide me Drew, I care for the scriptures. The Early Church Fathers at least stuck with what they were taught by the apostles as scripture. You throw the bible away and rely on your own philosophy. You twist scriptures to mean the opposite of what was intended to make them align to your philosophy. Anyone wise will repel this attempt to overthrow the gospel of Christ.

 

[Butch5]

[/FONT]
Even so, you are put in the difficult position - just like Tri-Unity - of explaining how it makes sense for Jesus to be "lord" or "king" over a set of people and yet have no interest whatsoever in having His followers seek to transform the way that those people are governed.
How do you respond?

(John 12:31 YLT) now is a judgment of this world, now shall the ruler of this world be cast forth;
30 I will no more talk much with you, for the ruler of this world doth come, and in me he hath nothing;
(John 16:11 YLT) and concerning judgment, because the ruler of this world hath been judged.


Jesus said that Satan is the ruler of this world. If that's the case then participating in it is participating in his kingdom.

I challenge this and politely suggest you may be exercising some selectivity in the evidence you look at. I suggest that it is relatively clear that those nations that provide the most freedom, the best justice, and the most compassion are those whose laws and institutions have been informed by Christian principles.

Can you give me one example of refugees fleeing from an ostensibly "Christian" nation to a non-Christian one?

Agreed, many bad things have been done in the name of gospel, but I suggest that the big picture shows that when "kingdom of God" principles are at least in the fight for a role in governance, you get a better outcome.

That may be the case, however, look at the damage that has been done to the faith. Is it worth driving people away from Christ for the sake of a few laws? Before Christians participated in government they would not use violence, afterward they not only used violence they began killing one another. Before they became involved in government they were separate from the world, afterwards they became just like the world. Before they participated in government they were being persecuted, afterward they were the persecutors. Right from the very beginning the faith has been damaged. From the time that Constantine first put Christians in government until this very the faith has suffered because of Christians participating in government. I don't know how studied you are in the early church, but if you were you should see the drastic difference between the church of the 1st three centuries and the church following. All of this is due to Christians participating in places of authority, whether that is in government or the church through the ages asserting its power. Jesus didn't force anyone to follow Him, when He sent out the disciples the first time He said if they receive you stay if not shake the dust off of your feet and move one.

You can say a few laws may help here or there but is that worth turning people away from Christ? Let's say Christians pass a law banning abortion, that great. In the process they've alienated an entire group of people and possibly turned them from Christ permanently. Some may say so what, at least the babies are saved. And it is great that the babies are saved. However, couldn't God do that very same thing Himself? Sure He could and He could do without turning people away from Christ. He could simply put it in the heart of an unbeliever to seek to ban abortion, thus the bill get's still gets passed and people don’t hate Christians in the process.

Paul tells us that the powers that be are ordained by God. The OT tells us that a kingdom doesn't rise or fall apart from God. God was raising up and putting down nations long before there were any Christians, surely He doesn't need their help now.

Do you think there is an acceptable amount of damage the faith should be subjected to in order to make the world a better place?

In the OT God told Israel to destroy "all" of the inhabitants of the nations they were going to possess so that they would not be polluted. They didn't do that and they were lead astray. Paul, quoting God, tells the Corinthians the same thing, come out from among them and I will receive you.

14 Be ye not unequally yoked together with unbelievers: for what fellowship hath righteousness with unrighteousness? and what communion hath light with darkness?
15 And what concord hath Christ with Belial? or what part hath he that believeth with an infidel?
16 And what agreement hath the temple of God with idols? for ye are the temple of the living God; as God hath said, I will dwell in them, and walk in them; and I will be their God, and they shall be my people.
17 Wherefore come out from among them, and be ye separate, saith the Lord, and touch not the unclean thing; and I will receive you,
18 And will be a Father unto you, and ye shall be my sons and daughters, saith the Lord Almighty.
(2Co 6:14-18 KJV)

How can one be involved in the government alongside unbelievers and not be unequally yoked? When one is working in conjunction with the unbeliever towards the same goal, even an honorable one they are still yoke together with the unbeliever. Notice God said come out from among them and I will receive you. It sure seems that the coming out from among then precedes being received.

Jesus also said, my kingdom is not of this world.

 

[nmwings]

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.

The “point” is…

If everyone actually obeyed the commandments, there would be no violence and we would not be having this debate!

That is my point. :yes

 

[Tri Unity]

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.

Very true. The distinction should be properly made.

 

[Drew]

Additionally, we have to look at why there was no involvement in government for the first 300 years of church history. Where did the first Christians get the idea that Christians shouldn't partake in government? When you look at what they say it becomes clear that it is from the teaching of the apostles and the words of Jesus Himself.

What particular words of Jesus are you referring to?

Did Jesus not instruct us to teach the nations to obey what He taught?

How do you explain your view that we should entirely disengage from the very domain that determines how "the nations" actually act? If we are to teach the nations to obey, why withdraw from a forum - that of politics - that would allow to do the very thing Jesus instructs us to do?

 

[Drew]

Firsty, our mandate is not based on DREW's philosophy, it is based on scriptural teachings.

You do not need to tell me this - my arguments are supported scripturally.

As you have recognized, there are no direct statements in scripture that back up your philosophy. You are standing alone with your pants down.

No. The fact there may not be a direct statement of the form "get involved in politics" is not a valid argument for withdrawal from the domain of politics. This is not difficult to understand - the Biblical narrative itself carries weight, and I suggest a strong case can be made that we are now citizens of a new kingdom and that we have a job to do - implementing Jesus' kingdom.

I suggest that the reader will be struck with odd it is for the Christian to withdraw from one fertile area for bringing Kingdom of God principles to the world - that of governance.

It appears that you are quite willing to allow others - those with an agenda entirely at odds with the kingdom of God - to determine how our world operates?

Is that really your position?

 

[Drew]

The “point†is…

If everyone actually obeyed the commandments, there would be no violence and we would not be having this debate!

That is my point. :yes

Well, I agree of course. But it should be clear that the absence of a specific "thou shalt not use violence in self-defence (personal or national) " statement in the Bible is not strong grounds for concluding that such violence is acceptable.

 

[Drew]

Secondly, your "philosophy" has turned the kingdom message into the cold-war between the forces of good (the Americans) and the forces of evil (the Communists, or anyone who does not represent the democratic or capitalist way).

Nothing I have actually written supports such an attribution. Please do not misrepresent my posts.

I don't care for your philosophy to guide me Drew,....

Well, no one is forcing you to be involved in this discussion.

I care for the scriptures. The Early Church Fathers at least stuck with what they were taught by the apostles as scripture. You throw the bible away and rely on your own philosophy.

You bear false witness or are not reading my posts.

Either way, I suggest you are not helping your case when you make such obviously false statements. I have used the Scriptures extensively in my posts, and any reader who is actually following this thread will know this.

You twist scriptures to mean the opposite of what was intended to make them align to your philosophy. Anyone wise will repel this attempt to overthrow the gospel of Christ.

This sound desperate. I have used scriptural arguments, and other arguments as well. I have rarely, if ever, resorted to this kind of mud-slinging rhetoric.

Remember: the careful reader will know when someone has stopped engaging the relevant texts, and engaging in proper debate, and has taken the low road of demonizing one's opponent (in the discussion).

 

[Tri Unity]

It appears that you are quite willing to allow others - those with an agenda entirely at odds with the kingdom of God - to determine how our world operates? Is that really your position?

My position is, as I have already explained at length, that the kingdoms, kings and governments are ordained by God - not by man's tally of votes. God had foreknown that the church would backslide into the same pluralism as Israel fell in to. Democracy is appointed by God; not man. Your votes do not justify God's ordination, anymore than fascism justifies the Nazi's. You are a product of your environment who are deceived into thinking you have made a difference to the world. God has used unfaithful servants to enter politics. That does not mean that their actions are justified. God ordained them to deception on account of their disobedience. God has handed the end-time Christians over to sin, just as He did to the Egyptians and Assyrians. You mistake God's punishment as a blessing. You are wrong on too many things. God has ordained that people (and Governments) follow a lie because of their pluralism and duplicity.

"And for this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie: That they all might be damned who believed not the truth, but had pleasure in unrighteousness." (2 Thess 2:11)

 

[Tri Unity]

...misrepresent my posts. You bear false witness... obviously false statements... I have rarely, if ever, resorted to this kind of mud-slinging rhetoric... taken the low road of demonizing one's opponent...

It is good to see you are above such things ;)

 

[Free]

My position is, as I have already explained at length, that the kingdoms, kings and governments are ordained by God - not by man's tally of votes. God had foreknown that the church would backslide into the same pluralism as Israel fell in to. Democracy is appointed by God; not man. Your votes do not justify God's ordination, anymore than fascism justifies the Nazi's.

Okay, so "Democracy is appointed by God" and "the kingdoms, kings and governments are ordained by God - not by man's tally of votes."

If democracy is appointed by God and governments are ordained by God and "not by man's tally of votes," how did Obama, and every other Prime Minister, President or whatever other democratic leader and party, ever get into power?

 

[Tri Unity]

Okay, so "Democracy is appointed by God" and "the kingdoms, kings and governments are ordained by God - not by man's tally of votes."

If democracy is appointed by God and governments are ordained by God and "not by man's tally of votes," how did Obama, and every other Prime Minister, President or whatever other democratic leader and party, ever get into power?

Are you suggesting the opposite, that God has not ordained kings, presidents and governments, even if they appear to be determined by man's votes?

"there is no power but of God: the powers that be are ordained of God." (Romans 13:1)