the military is not biblical practice

[shad]

It's amazing that since being military is so sinful, Jesus said of the Centurion, ""Truly I say to you, I have not found such great faith with anyone in Israel" rather than "Go and sin no more."

You use this verse to justify killing your enemy? amazing.

.

 

[handy]

No, just using this text to point out that perhaps you are mistaken in your opinion of the military. Jesus in no way showed such disdain for those who serve in the military, even though He was speaking to a Roman military man, and the Romans were not noted for tender mercies.

 

[Solo]

It's amazing that since being military is so sinful, Jesus said of the Centurion, ""Truly I say to you, I have not found such great faith with anyone in Israel" rather than "Go and sin no more."

Good Post, and right to the point of the truth of the Word of God.

 

[Solo]

Can a Christian Kill Another Human

by Voyle A. Glover


There are a wide array of opinions about whether it is ever right for a Christian to kill another person, regardless of the circumstances. Some believe a killing can be justified, even murder, depending on the circumstances. Others believe that a killing can be justified only if it isn't murder. Some hold that no Christian can ever purposely take the life of another human. And many Christians hold fast to the rule that all killing is forbidden, whether it's done by a Christian or anyone else.

We know that in times earlier than Christ, there was no bright-line that would forbid a child of God from killing another person. David—a man after God's own heart—did it. Elijah did it. Moses did it. Joshua did it. Samson did it. Jael did it. All of these killed one or more men. God didn't seem to be angry about it.

But, in the times of Christ, we read nothing about any follower of Christ ever raising his hand against another human to take a life. Never. Not once. There's never even a suggestion that one did, or that if one did, it would have been an action approved by Christ.

In one instance, where Christ is taken by the Pharisees in the Garden of Gethsemane, Peter, one of Christ's disciples, draws a sword. He reaches out and hit a man, then took a swing at him with the sword. His aggressive swing was aimed directly at the head of the man. His intent was clear: to cut off the man's head. But, the man ducks and instead, Peter cuts off the man's ear. Christ reattaches the man's ear and tells Peter to put up his sword. The story is told in that ancient book written thousands of years ago, and reads as follows:

• "Then said Jesus unto him, Put up again thy sword into his place: for all they that take the sword shall perish with the sword. (53) Thinkest thou that I cannot now pray to my Father, and he shall presently give me more than twelve legions of angels? (54) But how then shall the scriptures be fulfilled, that thus it must be?" The Book of Matthew, chapter 26, verses 52-54.

From this passage, we can make some conclusions. Briefly (not conclusively nor exhaustively), we can know the following observations:

• 1. Jesus was aware that Peter carried a sword. Indeed, within the band were two swords. This was discussed in the Book of Luke, chapter 22.
  
  2. The custom of the day was to carry a sword. The country had many thieves and bandits, plus a sword was an efficient utensil for cutting or peeling things.
  
  3. Jesus did not forbid the carrying of the swords. Indeed, in the passage found in Luke 22, he actually insisted they have a sword. They reported to him they actually had two of them.
  
  4. Jesus gave a command to Peter to put up the sword. He was not willing to have violence done to others in order to save himself.
  
  5. Jesus was against preventing his capture. After all, his capture was essential to his entire purposes on Earth. He makes sure the disciples understand that his capture does not signify his weakness. Christ tells them that with a mere prayer, the Father would send 12 legions of angels to his rescue. Thus, if he's unwilling to use the available resources of heaven to prevent his capture, why would he utilize a sword in the hands of follower? Moreover, if he depended on a weapon, whether a sword in the hands of a follower, or angels from heaven to keep him from being captured, he would not be able to complete his mission. He would be working contrary to the whole purpose of his coming to the earth. His ultimate goal was the cross where his life would be taken in order to save the lives of billions of humans. No one in the garden appeared to have understood this at the time.

RECONCILING THE OLD TESTAMENT GOD WITH CHRIST

Christ never repudiated that ancient book we know today as the Old Testament . He explained it. He taught it. He corrected the understanding of it amongst his followers and in synagogues. But he never repudiated it. In one significant vignette of his tenure, Christ tells his followers the following:

• "Ye have heard that it was said by them of old time, Thou shalt not kill; and whosoever shall kill shall be in danger of the judgment: (22) But I say unto you, That whosoever is angry with his brother without a cause shall be in danger of the judgment: and whosoever shall say to his brother, Raca, shall be in danger of the council: but whosoever shall say, Thou fool, shall be in danger of hell fire." Mathew 5:21-22

While there are many things one might learn from that little passage delivered by Christ, you inevitably come away realizing that down through the ages, men have not really understood the law as delivered by Moses. And, many Christians have not understood the word "kill" as translated in the King James Version of the Bible.

First of all, the word "kill," as supplied by the King James translators, actually meant far more than the English word "kill." The Greek word is phoneuo which means to "be a murderer," or to "do murder." Certainly, the implication carried within the Greek word means "to kill," since one who is murdered is killed, and one who murders, kills another person. But, not everyone who kills another, murders another. The concept of murder and the concept of kill are two very different concepts involving much different values and implications. Throughout history, men have murdered, and even the ungodly have taken offense and devised laws against murder. But, both our laws and the laws given by Moses understood that some killings were not murder, and thus, were not to be treated the same as murder in terms of consequences. God has always been against murder.

One argument that is fairly persuasive as to the notion that God is against any killing, is that God protected Cain by setting a "mark" of some kind on him lest anyone should "kill" him. The word used there is a broad one, encompassing far more than just killing, but includes striking, or hurting or beating, and includes murdering. The translators used a single, narrowly defined word: "kill." But, God obviously had in mind that no man would punish Cain for his crime. His punishment would come from God alone, and God had already decreed the punishment for Cain. Indeed, it was so great, Cain lamented that it was too great for him to bear. It would appear that death by the hand of another would have been a kindness. But, God had not given mankind the authority or the right to kill another man. That authority would come later, but at this point in time, God had not given it.

One might argue that the translations both in the Old Testament and the New Testament use the word "kill" (see, e.g., Exodus 20:13), and a look at the Greek and the Hebrew words used in the New and Old Testament show that one of the possible meanings is the word "kill." But, that is surely an unreliable perspective since we know absolutely that God authorized "killing" in the Old Testament. (See, for example, the following stories: Exodus 17:9-17 - story of Moses warring with Amalek; Genesis 14 - story of Abraham rescuing Lot; Joshua 8:1-29 - story of Joshua warring with Ai); 1 Kings 18:40 - story of Elijah killing 400 priest of Baal).

Retrieved from http://brevia.com/Spiritual/Pacifists.htm

(Continued in Following Post)

 

[Solo]

(Continued from Previous Post - Can a Christian Kill Another Human by Voyle A. Glover
DID CHRIST ALTER THE RULES?

We don't see the disciples of Christ doing what the kings of Israel and some of the prophets did, to wit, killing other men. We see the Apostle Paul warring against the Pharisees and against Rome, but without a sword and without an army. We see virtually every one of the disciples waging the same war, with the ultimate same result experienced by Paul, namely: they all were persecuted, beaten, and ultimately killed. Not a single one of them defended himself with a sword or an army.

Does that mean that Christ changed the rules? Was God wrong all those years before? Why does Jesus appear so docile and the followers of Jesus so pacifistic in comparison to God in the Old Testament and the followers of God in the Old Testament?

The roots of the answers to those questions would seem to lie in the scene in the Garden of Gethsemane and the words spoken by Jesus. And, one always needs to remember to compare Scripture to Scripture. The principles of God are unshakeable. They do not warp with time. They do not change with the passage of time, nor with ever-changing circumstances. Christ is the same yesterday, today and forever (Hebrews 13:8).

We know also that Christ is God the Creator. As it is written:

• "Who is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of every creature: (16) For by him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him, and for him: (17) And he is before all things, and by him all things consist." Colossians 1:15-17

Thus, when God says "Let us make man in our own image...." (Genesis 1:26), there is an implied multiple in the word "us" and "our." Since God is the one doing the making, we can conclude that "us" made mankind, and if "us" made mankind, and we know that "us" means God, and we know that everything was created by Jesus Christ, then we can only conclude that it was God who came down to the planet called Earth, the same God who created mankind, in the form of a man, to reconcile mankind to Himself. We also know that God is one God in three manifestations.

So then, if Christ does not change, then we can conclude that the manifestation of Christ on earth was the manifestation of the God of the Old Testament on earth, and the two are one and the same. Thus, Christ would not have come on the earth to contradict himself or to acknowledge that He (God) was wrong all those years during the Old Testament period.

If God was for the killing of certain people (and the evidence is crystal clear that this was His position), then not all killing is absolutely wrong.

Why then, didn't Christ authorize the killing of others to defend His disciples and others who ultimately became martyrs? Why didn't God authorize them to fight and war, and assist them in their wars with their enemies, as He did with Israel? Clearly, Christ did not authorize them to do that, else there would have been an army raised, and it would have been obvious from Scripture and history that He has assisted in this war. Instead, what we see is Christ assisting in empowering them, making them bold, protecting them in a limited fashion, and in spreading their power and influence throughout the world. We do not see Christ nor the followers raising up armies. He did not assist them in waging war. (The issue with the Roman Emperor Constantine is a murky one and cannot be said to have been a true "Christian" war, though he did wage war in the name of Christ. The question becomes one of whether he was a true Christian, and if so, whether his actions were of God, or whether he acted on his own.)

We know Islam has a very different view of these issues than does Christianity. The Christian does not believe in waging war to convert "infidels" to their cause. Christianity has, at its roots, a message of peace, a leader who proclaimed peace, and who never beheaded enemies, who did not espouse violence, and who cautioned His followers against violence. We don't see Christians blowing themselves up to kill innocent victims of another faith, or of another nation or government. We do not see Christians terrorizing innocent people with acts that defy decency and are outrageous slaughters of women and children.

True Christianity is a passive religion insofar as uprisings against governments or in rebellion against authority. Indeed, the Apostle Paul specifically taught, as inspired by God, that we are to obey those in authority over us. (See Hebrews 13:7). Christians are not taught to defy authority. Islam would subjugate the entire world to itself by force, since a true Muslim convert is merely one who conforms to the tenants of Islam. Christianity would reject forced conversions since Christians understand that a forced conversion to Christianity is no conversion, since conversion is an act done between God and man, and cannot be legislated. Islam is an outward religion, manifesting itself in rituals and adherance to strict rules and laws. Christianity is an inward explosion of change that manifests itself in love for humanity, which is why one does not and never will see explosions of "suicide bombers" who are true Christians.

In the Garden of Gethsemane, Christ bade Peter put up his sword. However, he amplified the command with an explanation or rationale that was alien to the mind-set of the day. He said that those who take the sword will perish with the sword. But, what does that mean? It cannot mean that anyone who takes up a sword will die by a sword, since history has proven that there have been many who have taken up arms and not perished by such. King David was a bloody man who'd taken up the sword against the enemies of Israel. He died in bed and not from a sword.

Obviously, Christ has a deeper meaning that the surface meaning. It was not unusual for him to speak in cryptic terms, or to use allegory, and often he'd give stories that contained deeper truths. Here, the truth Christ was conveying was one of the temporal nature of earthly powers. A man who takes up a weapon in reliance on its power to deliver him, would eventually die, along with his weapon. In other words, both the man and the weapon will perish. The power of a weapon and the weapon itself is temporal. Far better is to trust in the deliverance of God and rely upon the weapons of heaven. They will never perish. And, the man who trusts in the Lord will never perish.

Thus, the true lesson of the Garden is that waging war against our enemies with all the worldly weapons at our disposal is not the answer. We cannot afford to rely upon our weapons, our strength, and our skills. It isn't that we cannot defend ourselves. We can. The disciples were permitted to carry swords. But, our reliance cannot be on our weapons, nor our prowess with those weapons. We cannot force the world to accept Christ with a sword, nor can we subjugate the world to the tenets of Christianity by weapons. It isn't that we cannot ever kill another human. It may be necessary under certain just circumstances. But, that ought to be the exception-the rare exception-and not the rule. If a man comes into my home and is going to do violence-evil things to someone I love, then I would have no qualms about stopping him with violence, if need be, even to the point of death. However, if I have the mind-set that it is my skill, my weapon and my abilities that will gain me the victory, then I've placed my faith in something that will perish: my weapons and myself. Without God and heaven's power, I'm but a dead man. I cannot win. I cannot prevail.

Again and again, God demonstrated to Israel that it was God who made them victorious against their enemies. It was not their skill. It was not their armies. It as not their weapons. It was God who brought victory, not their weapons. (America has far too much reliance upon her armies and weapons and needs to learn the lesson of the Garden of Gethsemane.) It is the weapons of heaven upon which we must depend. Christ taught the Jews to listen for His presence in the Mulberry trees and then to follow him to victory.

We need to listen to that rustle in the trees of life.

That's kind of hard to do if all we hear is the rattle of our own swords and the boasting of our own mouth.

Retrieved from http://brevia.com/Spiritual/Pacifists.htm

 

[shad]

No, just using this text to point out that perhaps you are mistaken in your opinion of the military. Jesus in no way showed such disdain for those who serve in the military, even though He was speaking to a Roman military man, and the Romans were not noted for tender mercies.

You are ignoring that Jesus clearly says to do good to those who hate you. The military kills their enemy. It is opposite of what Jesus' commands.

.

 

[westtexas]

That was a good article Solo, thanks.
Westtexas

 

[shad]

Killing your enemy is sin, everyone. don't do it.

Many churches have have been watering down Jesus' massages to be politically correct. This is the bottom line of practicing the military.

.

 

[Solo]

Killing your enemy is sin, everyone. don't do it.

Many churches have have been watering down Jesus' massages to be politically correct. This is the bottom line of practicing the military.

.

Your interpretation of killing does not match up to the whole counsel of God's Word. You might want to read the article that I posted if you want to learn the truth.

Jesus, the Word of God, and all of His Saints will return to kill all enemies that are gathered against the righteousness of God. Jesus is going to kill all of His enemies. Is Jesus sinning? How does this fit with your position that we are to love our enemies and not kill them if Christ Jesus is going to kill them? Does Christ Jesus not love them, but tell us that we are to love them? Or is the Word of God more than what your interpretation is?

• 11 And I saw heaven opened, and behold a white horse; and he that sat upon him was called Faithful and True, and in righteousness he doth judge and make war. 12 His eyes were as a flame of fire, and on his head were many crowns; and he had a name written, that no man knew, but he himself. 13 And he was clothed with a vesture dipped in blood: and his name is called The Word of God. 14 And the armies which were in heaven followed him upon white horses, clothed in fine linen, white and clean. 15 And out of his mouth goeth a sharp sword, that with it he should smite the nations: and he shall rule them with a rod of iron: and he treadeth the winepress of the fierceness and wrath of Almighty God. 16 And he hath on his vesture and on his thigh a name written, KING OF KINGS, AND LORD OF LORDS. 17 And I saw an angel standing in the sun; and he cried with a loud voice, saying to all the fowls that fly in the midst of heaven, Come and gather yourselves together unto the supper of the great God; 18 That ye may eat the flesh of kings, and the flesh of captains, and the flesh of mighty men, and the flesh of horses, and of them that sit on them, and the flesh of all men, both free and bond, both small and great. 19 And I saw the beast, and the kings of the earth, and their armies, gathered together to make war against him that sat on the horse, and against his army. 20 And the beast was taken, and with him the false prophet that wrought miracles before him, with which he deceived them that had received the mark of the beast, and them that worshipped his image. These both were cast alive into a lake of fire burning with brimstone. 21 And the remnant were slain with the sword of him that sat upon the horse, which sword proceeded out of his mouth: and all the fowls were filled with their flesh. Revelation 19:11-21

 

[shad]

Here is what Jesus says.

Luke 6:27-36 (King James Version)

27But I say unto you which hear, Love your enemies, do good to them which hate you,

28Bless them that curse you, and pray for them which despitefully use you.

29And unto him that smiteth thee on the one cheek offer also the other; and him that taketh away thy cloak forbid not to take thy coat also.

30Give to every man that asketh of thee; and of him that taketh away thy goods ask them not again.

31And as ye would that men should do to you, do ye also to them likewise.

32For if ye love them which love you, what thank have ye? for sinners also love those that love them.

33And if ye do good to them which do good to you, what thank have ye? for sinners also do even the same.

34And if ye lend to them of whom ye hope to receive, what thank have ye? for sinners also lend to sinners, to receive as much again.

35But love ye your enemies, and do good, and lend, hoping for nothing again; and your reward shall be great, and ye shall be the children of the Highest: for he is kind unto the unthankful and to the evil.

36Be ye therefore merciful, as your Father also is merciful.

 

[Solo]

Here is what Jesus says.

Luke 6:27-36 (King James Version)

27But I say unto you which hear, Love your enemies, do good to them which hate you,

28Bless them that curse you, and pray for them which despitefully use you.

29And unto him that smiteth thee on the one cheek offer also the other; and him that taketh away thy cloak forbid not to take thy coat also.

30Give to every man that asketh of thee; and of him that taketh away thy goods ask them not again.

31And as ye would that men should do to you, do ye also to them likewise.

32For if ye love them which love you, what thank have ye? for sinners also love those that love them.

33And if ye do good to them which do good to you, what thank have ye? for sinners also do even the same.

34And if ye lend to them of whom ye hope to receive, what thank have ye? for sinners also lend to sinners, to receive as much again.

35But love ye your enemies, and do good, and lend, hoping for nothing again; and your reward shall be great, and ye shall be the children of the Highest: for he is kind unto the unthankful and to the evil.

36Be ye therefore merciful, as your Father also is merciful.

Revelation 19:11-21 shows what Jesus does to His enemies. How does this fit with your interpretation?

 

[handy]

No, just using this text to point out that perhaps you are mistaken in your opinion of the military. Jesus in no way showed such disdain for those who serve in the military, even though He was speaking to a Roman military man, and the Romans were not noted for tender mercies.

You are ignoring that Jesus clearly says to do good to those who hate you. The military kills their enemy. It is opposite of what Jesus' commands.

.

And I think that you are ignoring that we are not supposed to add to the word of God or to His commandments. Nowhere in Scripture is military service called sin. On the contrary, the Scriptures often praise the faith of those in the military or record their confessions of faith without a hint of condemnation for their profession.

Matt 27:54 When the centurion and those with him who were guarding Jesus saw the earthquake and all that had happened, they were terrified, and exclaimed, “Surely he was the Son of God!â€

Acts 10:1-2At Caesarea there was a man named Cornelius, a centurion in what was known as the Italian Regiment, a devout man and one who feared God with all his household and gave many alms to the Jewish people and prayed to God continually.

Plus, if being a soldier was a sinful profession, isn't it more than a bit odd that Paul would say of Epaphroditus, "But I think it is necessary to send back to you Epaphroditus, my brother, fellow worker and fellow soldier, who is also your messenger, whom you sent to take care of my needs." Phil 2:25

If being a soldier was a sinful profession, wouldn't comparing a worker in the Lord as a "fellow soldier" be akin to comparing a sister in the Lord a "fellow prostitute"? Naturally one would never compare a sister's work for the Lord to prosititution, for that is indeed a sinful profession. Yet, if being a soldier is as bad as being a prostitute, perhaps even worse since killing is involved, then wasn't Paul being totally crass by comparing Epaphroditus to a soldier?

 

[cyberjosh]

I think shad's divide on this topic is over the fact that atrocities can and do happen in wars, however I don't think shad will acknowledge that one can be honorable and righteous and still serve the military and also that atrocities do not always take place.

Jesus and Paul dealt with the centurions where they were at in life, in the positions they were at the time, much like slaves were addressed in the place that they were at in life. Aside from a military draft (which can be more debatable - since it can violate will) no one forces you to be a foot soldier or wield a gun if you are in the military, because you can refuse and still work in another position in the military (technician, mechanic, etc.). One does not have to be a foot soldier.

 

[cyberjosh]

My dad was in the Navy for four years as an electronics technician during a peace time in the military, with no on going wars. How can you associate guilt with a non-combatant, serving during a non-war period?

 

[Rick W]

The police and others you listed don't kill anyone randomly.

Ah. So it's ok to kill as long as it's not random. You hadn't mentioned that exception to killing.

Now you are going down to nit-picking.

This thread is about the military friend. Stick to the topic.

If you want to talk about other occupations make another thread, please.

.

If the military is unbiblical but not the police force where in scripture is the distinction?
Both are armed, both have a command hierarchy, both kill in a premeditated manner and both are government controlled.
I just want to know how the police force is justified but not the military when the stance is taken citing "Thou shall not kill".

 

[shad]

Revelation 19:11-21 shows what Jesus does to His enemies. How does this fit with your interpretation?

Ah, usual one.

Jesus will be judging the whole world very soon. Everyone has to wait until His time, friend.

.

 

[shad]

If the military is unbiblical but not the police force where in scripture is the distinction?

Ah, another usual one.

Jesus' followers should know how to apply the Bible teachings. You should know the difference between nation vs nation and individual things. The military aim for the whole nation, therefore killing many countless innocent people.

Both are armed, both have a command hierarchy, both kill in a premeditated manner and both are government controlled.

The same as the above.

I just want to know how the police force is justified but not the military when the stance is taken citing "Thou shall not kill".

I singled out the military because it is obvious destruction and involves many innocent people. You ought to know the difference, friend.

 

[shad]

I think shad's divide on this topic is over the fact that atrocities can and do happen in wars, however I don't think shad will acknowledge that one can be honorable and righteous and still serve the military and also that atrocities do not always take place.

You should know that if you are in the military you are witnessing to the world as hypocrite because we are preaching to them God is love. Our main mission is to preach God as Love, not whold's police.

.

 

[shad]

And I think that you are ignoring that we are not supposed to add to the word of God or to His commandments. Nowhere in Scripture is military service called sin. On the contrary, the Scriptures often praise the faith of those in the military or record their confessions of faith without a hint of condemnation for their profession.

Handy,

Jesus' folowers should know how to apply the bible to our own lives. "Love your enemy" is very simple and clear commandment. You are only making excuses to not follow it.

.

 

[shad]

Dear Pro-military,

It seems that most of you are brilliant in debating the Scripture but you dont seem to know how to apply them in real life. Christianity is a way of life, friends. We should know how to apply what we read in the Bible. Talk the talk, and not walk the walk make us only hypocrites. You know very well that Jesus hates hypocrisy. There is no room for hypocrisy in God's kingdom.

.