Jesus on Non-Violence

[Free]

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

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

Not at all. It was a simple question.

 

[Drew]

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

Nice try.

I am not doing what you are doing as you are implying here - in order to call you on what you are doing, I have no choice but to use such words.

Please raise the level of your posts.

 

[Tri Unity]

Please raise the level of your posts.

Are you kidding?

...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...

Drew, you are trying to convince people based on your reasoning skills and philosophy about a completely unbiblical ideology. You obviously believe in this passionately, and will not change your mind on anything that is presented. It is a little hard to proclaim the virtues of Anglicanism if the church-state alliance is ungodly. That truth is simply too difficult for you to bare. We all have idols and gods that must be destroyed. Some have drugs, some have riches, others have ideologies. It is most difficult for a rich man, Jesus says. Why? I wonder if you see the connection.

 

[Free]

Drew, you are trying to convince people based on your reasoning skills and philosophy about a completely unbiblical ideology. You obviously believe in this passionately, and will not change your mind on anything that is presented. It is a little hard to proclaim the virtues of Anglicanism if the church-state alliance is ungodly. That truth is simply too difficult for you to bare. We all have idols and gods that must be destroyed. Some have drugs, some have riches, others have ideologies. It is most difficult for a rich man, Jesus says. Why? I wonder if you see the connection.

First, you have yet to prove that it is unbiblical. Second, there is no need to use such rhetoric especially when one could say the same regarding you and your position. Such rhetoric leaves us no where and doesn't contribute to the discussion.

 

[Tri Unity]

First, you have yet to prove that it is unbiblical. Second, there is no need to use such rhetoric especially when one could say the same regarding you and your position. Such rhetoric leaves us no where and doesn't contribute to the discussion.

Ok, point taken. Sorry Drew.

 

[Butch5]

What particular words of Jesus are you referring to?

(John 15:19 KJV) If ye were of the world, the world would love his own: but because ye are not of the world, but I have chosen you out of the world, therefore the world hateth you.
14 I have given them thy word; and the world hath hated them, because they are not of the world, even as I am not of the world.
(John 17:16 KJV) They are not of the world, even as I am not of the world.​

Plus there are the apostles words which are from Christ also.

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

He said to teach the ethnos. Again, I don't know that case can be made that we are to go teach physical nations.

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?

Jesus said go and make disciples, disciples are inidividuals, not nations. We are to teach them what Jesus taught not enforce it on them.

Also, I've seen the damage that's been done to the faith because Christians are to concerned with the kingdoms of this world. I've already addressed this in one of the last few posts. As I said, the first Christians wouldn't participate in government and their witness was pure. After Christians began to participate in government their witnes was greatly damaged. How does one claim to follow the prince of peace while killing others? They began to force their beliefs on other Christians. This is were the persecution of Christians by Christians began. Later it turned to Christians killing Christians. All because they obtained places of authority. Prior to this Christians wouldn't persecute heretics, however, after they got into positions of authority that all changed. I could go on for hours listing the damage done to the faith because Christians have participated in the things of the world. We are told to be in the world not of it.

 

[Stormcrow]

“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€

It's not reasonable to cite a specific passage about Christ's impending sacrifice as an injunction against self or national defense.

Nothing relating to the extreme case of Christ's sacrifice can be construed - in any way - to enjoin those who follow Christ from the use of force when life itself is at stake.

 

[wayseer]

It's not reasonable to cite a specific passage about Christ's impending sacrifice as an injunction against self or national defense.

Nothing relating to the extreme case of Christ's sacrifice can be construed - in any way - to enjoin those who follow Christ from the use of force when life itself is at stake.

A good example of how to project onto Christ one's own inadequacies.

 

[Stormcrow]

A good example of how to project onto Christ one's own inadequacies.

A good example of how to project onto others one's own inadequacies.

 

[Mike]

The personal attacks in this thread have got to stop. Do not direct your posts at the person. Address the argument. Failure to adjust will result in disciplinary action including Infractions.

 

[Drew]

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

I have dealt with this text many, many times in this forum (to be fair, you probably have not seen my argument). I have yet to receive a single counterargument that seems remotely workable. Perhaps you can provide one:

Pilate then went back inside the palace, summoned Jesus and asked him, "Are you the king of the Jews?" 34"Is that your own idea," Jesus asked, "or did others talk to you about me?" 35"Am I a Jew?" Pilate replied. "It was your people and your chief priests who handed you over to me. What is it you have done?" 36Jesus said, "My kingdom is not of this world. If it were, my servants would fight to prevent my arrest by the Jews. But now my kingdom is from another place."

In verse 36, Jesus seems to be saying "My kingdom has nothing to do with earthly kingdoms, so there is no 'political' dimension to my kingdom".

As it turns out, there is a huge translation issue here. Here is the rendering of verse 36 as per the NET Bible:

Jesus replied, “My kingdom is not from this world. If my kingdom were from this world, my servants would be fighting to keep me from being 1 handed over 2 to the Jewish authorities. 3 But as it is, 4 my kingdom is not from here.

The NET version is, my sources indicate, true to the original Greek. The greek word that is rendered “from†(above in the bolded and underlined cases) has the following definition:

“a primary preposition denoting origin (the point whence action or motion proceeds), from, out (of place, time, or cause; literal or figurative; direct or remote)â€

When the word is used properly, we see that the “not of this world†reading is misleading. The intended meaning is that the Kingdom that has been brought to earth is from Heaven - that is, Heaven is the point of origin for the Kingdom that has been initiated.

Jesus is a King. Jesus' kingdom, while not from this world, is rather clearly for this world.

 

[Drew]

Ok, point taken. Sorry Drew.

No problem. I appreciate this post. I fully understand that when one believes strongly that the Bible supports position X, it can seem that those who disagree are "distorting" or "using human reasoning", or otherwise are an enemy of the gospel.

But we all feel that way, and like you, I need to resist the urge to go down the road of leveling such critiques - we all need (I think you will agree) to go to the relevant texts, provide the relevant arguments, and let the chips fall where they may.

 

[Drew]

It's not reasonable to cite a specific passage about Christ's impending sacrifice as an injunction against self or national defense.

Why not, exactly? If, as I believe is the case, Jesus connects the non-violent resistance of his followers to Jesus' arrest to the fact those followers are members of a "different kind of kingdom", why is it unreasonable to draw the conclusion that non-violent resistance is the "rule" in the kingdom?

Note that Jesus does not say "My followers are not fighting to free me because that might sabotage my intent to go to the Cross". Instead, He rather clearly seems to characterize that non-violent resistance as part and parcel of membership in a new kingdom. And that certainly does seem to justify drawing a generalization about how we are to act.

 

[Drew]

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.

How do you support the claim that I have bolded and underlined? More specifically, how can you possibly know this, precisely because we basically have no data - there has been, I suggest, no sustained human effort to use the pacifist strategy. So I am not sure how you can draw your conclusion.

Let me re-state something I stated before: It may well be true that, in the short term, pacifism means more loss of "innocent" life. But it is at least plausible that the benefits of pacifism are realized only over the long term - as the cycle of generational "your country killed my parents, so I will take arms against you" patter of violence is broken.

 

[Stormcrow]

Why not, exactly?

Because there is, quite literally, not another person who ever walked the earth like Jesus and who was here specifically for one purpose and one purpose alone. Even Peter, when he tried to chide the Lord for speaking of His impending sacrifice, was referred to as "satan" and told to get behind Him.

Nothing was going to stop Christ from going to the cross. That's why He came. Therefore, to suggest that a general injunction against defense-based violence based on this one, unique, extreme example is not a logical or reasonable conclusion to draw from the passage.

Christians are cops. Christians are soldiers. Christians fought in the Crusades to defend pilgrims (other Christians and Jews) traveling to the Holy Land from marauding bands of Muslims bent on their death or enslavement and forced conversion.

To suggest that these Christians - who took up and continue to take up the sword in the name of life and liberty - are wrong for doing so based on a single unique and extreme example from the Bible is a leap of logic no one should make.

If I see a loved one being harmed, I will act in their defense. If - in your very narrow view - that makes me a sinner, so be it. I don't have to answer to you.

 

[Drew]

Jesus said go and make disciples, disciples are inidividuals, not nations.

Here is the NASB:

Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit, 20 teaching them to observe all that I commanded you;

I think you are basically begging the question if you presume that Jesus is referring only to individuals that make up the nation.

The point being that this text is at least open to a reading where we are instructed to address the corporate life of the nation.

 

[Drew]

Because there is, quite literally, not another person who ever walked the earth like Jesus and who was here specifically for one purpose and one purpose alone. Even Peter, when he tried to chide the Lord for speaking of His impending sacrifice, was referred to as "satan" and told to get behind Him.

Nothing was going to stop Christ from going to the cross.

As I have pointed out, Jesus does not explain his follower's passive reaction to His capture in terms like "if my disciples intervened by force to protect me, that might interfere with my destiny to go to the cross.

Instead, he explains their "pacifism" in terms of their membership in a new kingdom.

Are we not members of that same kingdom?

 

[Butch5]

Here is the NASB:

Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit, 20 teaching them to observe all that I commanded you;

I think you are basically begging the question if you presume that Jesus is referring only to individuals that make up the nation.

The point being that this text is at least open to a reading where we are instructed to address the corporate life of the nation.

Drew,

How do you teach and baptize a nation? Do you think that in the judgment Christians will be judged as nations? Will we be judged on how America conducted itself as a nation? Jesus said in Mathew 25 that the nations would be gathered at the judgment, do you suppose that people will be judged based on the actions of the country in which they lived?

 

[Butch5]

I have dealt with this text many, many times in this forum (to be fair, you probably have not seen my argument). I have yet to receive a single counterargument that seems remotely workable. Perhaps you can provide one:

Pilate then went back inside the palace, summoned Jesus and asked him, "Are you the king of the Jews?" 34"Is that your own idea," Jesus asked, "or did others talk to you about me?" 35"Am I a Jew?" Pilate replied. "It was your people and your chief priests who handed you over to me. What is it you have done?" 36Jesus said, "My kingdom is not of this world. If it were, my servants would fight to prevent my arrest by the Jews. But now my kingdom is from another place."

In verse 36, Jesus seems to be saying "My kingdom has nothing to do with earthly kingdoms, so there is no 'political' dimension to my kingdom".

As it turns out, there is a huge translation issue here. Here is the rendering of verse 36 as per the NET Bible:

Jesus replied, “My kingdom is not from this world. If my kingdom were from this world, my servants would be fighting to keep me from being 1 handed over 2 to the Jewish authorities. 3 But as it is, 4 my kingdom is not from here.

The NET version is, my sources indicate, true to the original Greek. The greek word that is rendered “from†(above in the bolded and underlined cases) has the following definition:

“a primary preposition denoting origin (the point whence action or motion proceeds), from, out (of place, time, or cause; literal or figurative; direct or remote)â€

When the word is used properly, we see that the “not of this world†reading is misleading. The intended meaning is that the Kingdom that has been brought to earth is from Heaven - that is, Heaven is the point of origin for the Kingdom that has been initiated.

Jesus is a King. Jesus' kingdom, while not from this world, is rather clearly for this world.

Yes, it's the Greek word "ek" it carries the meaning "out from within". Jesus is saying that His kingdom in not "out from within" this word. It does have its origin in heaven. That's my point. If Jesus' kingdom is not "out from within" this world , then our kingdom in not "out from within" the world. If that is the case then why would we as citizens of a kingdom that is not "out from within" this world be involved in kingdoms that are "out from within" this world. Where is our citizenship, is it in God's kingdom or men's kingdoms? Jesus said if one isn't willing to forsake "all" he has he cannot be my disciple. I think that would include one's earthly citizenship. When we became Christians we changed our citizenship from our earthly kingdom the heavenly one.

 

[Butch5]

It's not reasonable to cite a specific passage about Christ's impending sacrifice as an injunction against self or national defense.

Nothing relating to the extreme case of Christ's sacrifice can be construed - in any way - to enjoin those who follow Christ from the use of force when life itself is at stake.

There's a lot more than a single passage of Scripture