Personal Self-Defense

[Sir Wilshire]

I'm wondering if anyone knowledgeable of early church history could help me out here. I would like to know if members of the early church defended themselves/families/innocents/etc. with violence in personal situations when the need arised. Also, it would be great information to have as well if you know what they said about the morality of violent self-defense, and why they held that certain position.

[Amazing Rando]

Hmm, since it appears that my requested self-imposed banning for the duration of Lent has been lifted somehow, I may as well post, I suppose.


I'm wondering if anyone knowledgeable of early church history could help me out here. I would like to know if members of the early church defended themselves/families/innocents/etc. with violence in personal situations when the need arised. Also, it would be great information to have as well if you know what they said about the morality of violent self-defense, and why they held that certain position.

You may be interested in the extensive treatment of the attitude of early church toward violence in my thesis. See the attached file. Part II is the section most relevant to your questions. :smile:

If you have access to a good library, I can also recommend a few other books-

Jean-Michel Hornus, It Is Not Lawful for Me to Fight: Early Christian Attitudes Toward War, Violence, and the State
Roland Bainton, Christian Attitudes Toward War and Peace
John Cecil Cadoux, The Early Christian Attitude to War: A Contribution to the History of Christian Ethics

The Cadoux book you can actually read online, since it's in the public domain, here: http://oll.libertyfund.org/index.php?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php%3Ftitle=648&layout=html

[slaveofone]

I'm wondering if anyone knowledgeable of early church history could help me out here. I would like to know if members of the early church defended themselves/families/innocents/etc. with violence in personal situations when the need arised. Also, it would be great information to have as well if you know what they said about the morality of violent self-defense, and why they held that certain position.

Basically, the early church was so committed to doing no violence to their enemies even if it meant losing their own lives and the lives of their loved ones that it became a problem in the church not that people were being martyred, but that people were seeking after martyrdom. Christians were starting to purposely go out of their way to die at the ends of their enemies. Both positions: the taking of your enemy's life and willingly seeking after the taking of your own became anathema to Christian faith for the first several centuries.

[Amazing Rando]

Basically, the early church was so committed to doing no violence to their enemies even if it meant losing their own lives and the lives of their loved ones that it became a problem in the church not that people were being martyred, but that people were seeking after martyrdom. Christians were starting to purposely go out of their way to die at the ends of their enemies. Both positions: the taking of your enemy's life and willingly seeking after the taking of your own became anathema to Christian faith for the first several centuries.

Indeed, a good illustrative sample of this early church consensus:

For when God forbids us to kill, He not only prohibits us from open violence, which is not even allowed by the public laws, but He warns us against the commission of those things which are esteemed lawful among men. Thus it will be neither lawful for a just man to engage in warfare, since his warfare is justice itself, nor to accuse any one of a capital charge, because it makes no difference whether you put a man to death by word, or rather by the sword, since it is the act of putting to death which is prohibited. Therefore, with regard to this precept of God, there ought to be no exception at all; but that it is always unlawful to put to death a man, whom God willed to be a sacred animal.

[Sir Wilshire]

Here's a question. On one side of the scenarios for self-defense I proposed above, one could say that yes, Jesus calls us to love our enemies, but that must give way to preserving innocent life if the two absolutes come into conflict. That at least seems to be case with the OT. On the other hand, it could be said that God allowed that in the OT because of the hardness of Israel's heart as He did with divorce, but does no longer. What argument does the pacifist position advance against the self-defense position's interpretation of Jesus' command to love your enemies that would not allow this moral hierarchy?

[TyRockwell]

Here's a question. On one side of the scenarios for self-defense I proposed above, one could say that yes, Jesus calls us to love our enemies, but that must give way to preserving innocent life if the two absolutes come into conflict. That at least seems to be case with the OT. On the other hand, it could be said that God allowed that in the OT because of the hardness of Israel's heart as He did with divorce, but does no longer. What argument does the pacifist position advance against the self-defense position's interpretation of Jesus' command to love your enemies that would not allow this moral hierarchy?

We are to love the innocent who is in danger of being harmed by an evil person. This is why God gave the principle of human government. Jesus established his spiritual kingdom, but it and natural authorities exist in parallel as long as his spiritual kingdom is not yet ruling with a rod of iron to protect the good and punish the evil.

[Sir Wilshire]

I'm talking about situations where the police wouldn't be able to help you, at least not immediately, where you would have to make a choice to use violence to defend yourself or others.

[Augustine2004]

John W. Robbins of www.trinityfoundation.org I believe thinks that self defense and defense of the innocent is just even unto death of the aggressor.

[LilPunkishOfTerror]

I'm wondering if anyone knowledgeable of early church history could help me out here. I would like to know if members of the early church defended themselves/families/innocents/etc. with violence in personal situations when the need arised. Also, it would be great information to have as well if you know what they said about the morality of violent self-defense, and why they held that certain position.

Oh dear, TWEB's in deep trouble now :eek:
:bonk: :poke: :rock: :whack: :whip:

All of these are called 'aggressive smilies'. Dang!

Seriously though, what do you make of this passage?
35Then Jesus asked them, "When I sent you without purse, bag or sandals, did you lack anything?"
"Nothing," they answered.
36He said to them, "But now if you have a purse, take it, and also a bag; and if you don't have a sword, sell your cloak and buy one. (Luke 22, NIV)

Why would Jesus counsel his disciples to buy swords if not for self defense?

[Sir Wilshire]

The verses right after it show it can't be used to justify self-defense.

"It is written: 'And he was numbered with the transgressors'; and I tell you that this must be fulfilled in me. Yes, what is written about me is reaching its fulfillment." The disciples said, "See, Lord, here are two swords." "That is enough," he replied."
-Luke 22:37-38 (NIV)

He was telling them to get swords so a prophecy would be fulfilled. If he was justifying self-defense here, he more likely would have told them all to get swords. This passage no more justifies self-defense than "turn the other cheek" makes it wrong.

[TyRockwell]

The verses right after it show it can't be used to justify self-defense.

"It is written: 'And he was numbered with the transgressors'; and I tell you that this must be fulfilled in me. Yes, what is written about me is reaching its fulfillment." The disciples said, "See, Lord, here are two swords." "That is enough," he replied."
-Luke 22:37-38 (NIV)

He was telling them to get swords so a prophecy would be fulfilled. If he was justifying self-defense here, he more likely would have told them all to get swords. This passage no more justifies self-defense than "turn the other cheek" makes it wrong.

I think he didn't want his disciples to get swords right away, but a little later, after his ascension. He was to ask the soldiers who arrested him, "Am I leading an insurrection?

He didn't want his disciples to look too armed on that night. He wanted to keep them alive.

[Sir Wilshire]

John W. Robbins of www.trinityfoundation.org I believe thinks that self defense and defense of the innocent is just even unto death of the aggressor.

What reasons does he give?

[LilPunkishOfTerror]

I think he didn't want his disciples to get swords right away, but a little later, after his ascension. He was to ask the soldiers who arrested him, "Am I leading an insurrection? He didn't want his disciples to look too armed on that night. He wanted to keep them alive. Okay, but having swords later is still [i}having swords.[/I] - which implies some sort of self defense (might be for killing attacking bears though :smile:)

[TyRockwell]

Okay, but having swords later is still [I}having swords.[/i] - which implies some sort of self defense (might be for killing attacking bears though :smile:)

Right. According to the context:
35Then Jesus asked them, "When I sent you without purse, bag or sandals, did you lack anything?"
"Nothing," they answered.
36He said to them, "But now if you have a purse, take it, and also a bag; and if you don't have a sword, sell your cloak and buy one. (Luke 22, NIV (http://biblegateway.com/cgi-bin/bible?language=english&version=NIV&passage=Luke+22))

He knew they would need things to deal with the realities of the world, and Jesus had kept them safe (John 17) but they would have to use their own faith after his departure, and swords would be needed, too. Bears, robbers, betrayers, killers, all would require them to be prepared for self defense.

[Augustine2004]

What reasons does he give?My post was based on this passage from http://www.trinityfoundation.org/journal.php?id=79


A fairly large number of pietists emigrated to America. The Hutterites, possibly the last to come, settled in the Dakotas. Mennonites and Amish produced a dense population in Lancaster County, Pennsylvania, and adjoining counties. They still speak the German dialect of the eighteenth century, or did so until recently. They are hard workers, absolutely honest, and deplorably stupid, or in more polite language, blindly attached to their religious principles. I used the work stupid because of their attachment to non-resistance to evil, even more than their military pacifism. My younger daughter had a very friendly conversation with a young wife of her own age. The Amish girl tried to explain the principles of non-resistance, and perhaps vaguely hoped to convert my daughter. She listened, not merely patiently, but willingly, for it was not an entirely new experience for her, yet a somewhat new experience. Then she softly dropped a bomb. Suppose, she said, a thug attacked you and tried to rape you; your husband, a hefty farmer, was standing only fifteen feet away; would you want your husband to stand still and watch you being raped, or would you want him to resist and use force to rescue you? The Amish girl, one hundred percent truthful, was taken aback, and almost stuttering replied, “I never thought of that.” There is the key to the situation: Pietists do not think.

James 4:7 says, “Resist the devil.” And the rapist is inspired by the devil. But then there is Matthew 5:39, “But I say unto you, that ye resist not evil.” Does this mean that Christ forbids a husband to defend his wife? For that matter, Christ’s statement, so-interpreted, would prevent a city from having a police force.

If you want, I can write J. W. Robbins and ask if he wants to add any more to that.

[Sir Wilshire]

I think he didn't want his disciples to get swords right away, but a little later, after his ascension. He was to ask the soldiers who arrested him, "Am I leading an insurrection?

He didn't want his disciples to look too armed on that night. He wanted to keep them alive.

That doesn't work, if you read on down in the chapter.

"When Jesus' followers saw what was going to happen, they said, "Lord, should we strike with our swords?" And one of them struck the servant of the high priest, cutting off his right ear."
-Luke 22:49-50 (NIV)

They got the swords before the arrest at garden. I think it's clear the scripture Jesus talked about earlier in the chapter was fulfilled in the garden. Otherwise, how could he be numbered among the transgressors if they weren't considered transgressors until after his ascension?


My post was based on this passage from http://www.trinityfoundation.org/journal.php?id=79


A fairly large number of pietists emigrated to America. The Hutterites, possibly the last to come, settled in the Dakotas. Mennonites and Amish produced a dense population in Lancaster County, Pennsylvania, and adjoining counties. They still speak the German dialect of the eighteenth century, or did so until recently. They are hard workers, absolutely honest, and deplorably stupid, or in more polite language, blindly attached to their religious principles. I used the work stupid because of their attachment to non-resistance to evil, even more than their military pacifism. My younger daughter had a very friendly conversation with a young wife of her own age. The Amish girl tried to explain the principles of non-resistance, and perhaps vaguely hoped to convert my daughter. She listened, not merely patiently, but willingly, for it was not an entirely new experience for her, yet a somewhat new experience. Then she softly dropped a bomb. Suppose, she said, a thug attacked you and tried to rape you; your husband, a hefty farmer, was standing only fifteen feet away; would you want your husband to stand still and watch you being raped, or would you want him to resist and use force to rescue you? The Amish girl, one hundred percent truthful, was taken aback, and almost stuttering replied, “I never thought of that.” There is the key to the situation: Pietists do not think.

James 4:7 says, “Resist the devil.” And the rapist is inspired by the devil. But then there is Matthew 5:39, “But I say unto you, that ye resist not evil.” Does this mean that Christ forbids a husband to defend his wife? For that matter, Christ’s statement, so-interpreted, would prevent a city from having a police force.

If you want, I can write J. W. Robbins and ask if he wants to add any more to that.

That guy's first paragraph isn't an argument, his daughter errs in thinking there are only two options in that scenario, and errs in thinking that violence is the only thing to keep that from happening. As for the two verses he cites, he take James 4:7 out of context. It's talking about resisting temptation. It could be the rapist's sinful nature inspiring him and not the devil anyway. I think, however, when Jesus is talking about not resisting evil; he isn't disapproving of defending yourself in a situation where it would be needed, but due to the context, is talking about not using the injustices listed (and ones like them) as an excuse for unnecessary escalation, and instead use the situation for creative subversion of the evil person's intentions.

[Lightknight]

How early are you looking for? By Augustine's time he already developed the now well known just war theory.

I see multiple people brought up the verse from Luke on Jesus telling them to get swords. I also see someone discounted that as Jesus fulfilling a prophecy. What prophecy is He fulfilling by telling them to get swords? None. The prophecy He mentioned was when He was going to be taking on the sins of the world. That is when He was counted amongst the transgressors. It has nothing to do with them having swords. He asked them before if they had lacked anything when they were with Him without money (v. 35), then He said "but now", which means He's going to be away from them and they need to be able to protect themselves.

I am of the opinion that Jesus had enough followers at the time to have started a rebellion. That His followers were numerous enough to fight back and that Jesus didn't want that. I think the few swords being enough was a message to defend themselves but not to attack.

[Sir Wilshire]

How early are you looking for? By Augustine's time he already developed the now well known just war theory.

I see multiple people brought up the verse from Luke on Jesus telling them to get swords. I also see someone discounted that as Jesus fulfilling a prophecy. What prophecy is He fulfilling by telling them to get swords? None. The prophecy He mentioned was when He was going to be taking on the sins of the world. That is when He was counted amongst the transgressors. It has nothing to do with them having swords. He asked them before if they had lacked anything when they were with Him without money (v. 35), then He said "but now", which means He's going to be away from them and they need to be able to protect themselves.

I am of the opinion that Jesus had enough followers at the time to have started a rebellion. That His followers were numerous enough to fight back and that Jesus didn't want that. I think the few swords being enough was a message to defend themselves but not to attack.

Oops. I didn't see the reference to that Isaiah prophecy when I was reading it earlier. I thought Jesus was just referencing some typological part of a psalm or something. That's why I was using it to figure out why he told them to get swords. Anyway, by early, I mean before Constantine. Also, two things Amazing Rando posted talk about Luke 22. Here are the relevant parts. The first quote is from Cadoux, and the second is from Rando's thesis.

"More serious difficulty is occasioned by an incident narrated by Luke in his story of the Last Supper. After reminding his disciples that they had lacked nothing on their mission-journeys, though unprovided with purse, wallet, and shoes, Jesus counsels them now to take these necessaries with them, and adds : "And let him who has no sword sell his cloak and buy one. For I tell you that this which has been written must be accomplished in me, 'And he was reckoned with the lawless.' For that which concerneth me has (its own) accomplishment" . They tell him there are two swords there, and he replies abruptly : "It is enough." No entirely satisfactory explanation of this difficult passage has yet been given. The obvious fact that two swords were not enough to defend twelve men seems to rule out a literal interpretation; and the closing words of Jesus strongly suggest that the disciples, in referring to actual swords, had misunderstood him. The explanation suggested by Harnack, that the sword was meant metaphorically to represent the stedfast defence of the Gospel under the persecution now approaching, is perhaps the best within our reach at present : at all events, until one obviously better has been produced, we cannot infer from the passage that Jesus was really encouraging his disciples to go about armed. Peter took a sword with him that very night, but on the first occasion on which he used it, he was told by Jesus not to do so."

Hmm, with this one I would say just because Jesus said two was enough doesn't necessarily mean he meant them to take that advice symbolically. It also makes me wonder what the other things represented as well. The literal meaning seems to be the more natural reading, but I think I will have to expound some more on that later. Also, I would say that Jesus telling Peter not to use the sword was more likely due to the fact that Jesus knew he had to die, thus Peter was hindering that from coming to pass, and not to the idea that self-defense is always wrong.

"The final (and perhaps, most formidable) passage that may be advanced in favor of participation in violence by the people of God is found in Jesus' farewell speech to his disciples in Luke 22: He said to them, "But now if you have a purse, take it, and also a bag; and if you don't have a sword, sell your cloak and buy one. It is written: 'And he was numbered with the transgressors'; and I tell you that this must be fulfilled in me. Yes, what is written about me is reaching its fulfillment." The disciples said, "See, Lord, here are two swords." "That is enough," he replied.
-Luke 22:36-38

Back in my college days, this was the only passage we could conceive of even possibly supporting armament, self-defense, and violence by God's people. The plain reading of this passage looks as if Jesus is ordering his disciples to go buy swords to protect themselves from the brigands and other hostile forces that would assail them. Yet all is not as it appears in this text. First, pragmatically, two swords could in no way be considered sufficient protection for twelve men who were being sent out in small groups- some would be left defenseless. Secondly, the allusion in 22:35 to the previous mission in Luke 9:1-2 exhibits the contrast between the two missions which serves to illuminate what this passage is really saying. In the first discipleship training mission, the disciples were sent out with nothing, and were to rely solely on the goodwill of those whom they encountered to meet their needs. Now however, something has changed. In chapter 22, Jesus is acutely aware of the growing resistance to his mission in Galilee and in Jerusalem, and is sternly warning his disciples that they must be prepared to meet with fierce resistance, rejection, and persecution.

Not being able to rely on the hospitality of their hearers, "they will need to take along their own provisions, and the sword serves as a vivid symbol of the fact that they must now expect to encounter opposition." The disciples, however, betray their continuing obtuseness and incomprehension by mistaking a symbolic injunction for a literal instruction, saying in effect, "Look at how ready we are, Lord! We've already got two swords!" Despite Jesus' repeated warnings of the hardships to come, they still have no idea about the true nature of the costly program to which they've dedicated their lives. Jesus' reply is one of impatient dismissal: "Enough, already!" If they haven't gotten the point by now, further explanations by Jesus will make no difference. Jesus cuts them off abruptly, because the time grows short.

Finally, the surety of this reading is proven by the events that follow. After cutting off his disciples' uncomprehending zealousness to arm themselves, Jesus is accosted by the Judas-led mob attempting to arrest him. Of all the commentators I've consulted, Hays explains what follows best: The disciples ask, "Lord, should we strike with the sword?" and one of them, without even waiting for an answer, cuts off the ear of the high priest's slave. Jesus however rebukes him ("No more of this!") and heals the injured slave (Luke 22:49-51). Here again, literal armed resistance is exposed as a foolish misunderstanding of Jesus' message. One of the swords the disciples gloried in possessing was actually employed in the defense of their master, and just as surely as the disciples misunderstood their Lord's instructions once more, Jesus heals the damage caused by his impudent Zealot-minded disciples. The point of this passage for our purposes is that the kingdom of God cannot be achieved through force of arms; rather it is precisely the renunciation of violence that ushers in the kingdom. Matthew's Jesus offers perhaps the clearest and most unambiguous declaration of this fact: "Put your sword back in its place," Jesus said to him, "for all who draw the sword will die by the sword" (Matthew 26:52)."

As to what Rando says, I offer the same things I said above, but I think he makes a better case for why the sword part should be taken symbolically. It seems to me that


He knew they would need things to deal with the realities of the world, and Jesus had kept them safe (John 17) but they would have to use their own faith after his departure, and swords would be needed, too. Bears, robbers, betrayers, killers, all would require them to be prepared for self defense.
is also a likely reading as well. I think some more digging needs to be done with this passage. With Rando's last paragraph, I agree in a way. Of course, Christians aren't supposed to evangelize people by using violence, but I don't see how what happened in the garden means self-defense and defense of others is always wrong.

[Augustine2004]

Let me understand you. Suppose you see, while out for a walk in a remote country, happen upon a man and a woman. The woman is screaming rape, and the man appears to be preparing to rape her. You happen to have a stout stick nearby, and you think you can drive the man off or knock him out, especially while his attention is on the screaming woman. What would you do?

[Sir Wilshire]

Let me understand you. Suppose you see, while out for a walk in a remote country, happen upon a man and a woman. The woman is screaming rape, and the man appears to be preparing to rape her. You happen to have a stout stick nearby, and you think you can drive the man off or knock him out, especially while his attention is on the screaming woman. What would you do?

I'm not really interested in discussing hypotheticals. I want to use this thread to discuss what the Bible has to say about the morality of self-defense, and why the early Christians believed what they did about it.

[Sir Wilshire]

Anybody got some thoughts on why the passage in Luke 22 should be or shouldn't be taken symbolically? Also, any thoughts on what I said earlier?


Here's a question. On one side of the scenarios for self-defense I proposed above, one could say that yes, Jesus calls us to love our enemies, but that must give way to preserving innocent life if the two absolutes come into conflict. That at least seems to be case with the OT. On the other hand, it could be said that God allowed that in the OT because of the hardness of Israel's heart as He did with divorce, but does no longer. What argument does the pacifist position advance against the self-defense position's interpretation of Jesus' command to love your enemies that would not allow this moral hierarchy?

[LilPunkishOfTerror]

Peter didn't think it was symbolic...

[Augustine2004]

Sir Wilshire, have you looked into the just war doctrine yet?

[Sir Wilshire]

Peter didn't think it was symbolic...

:hehe:

That settles it!


Sir Wilshire, have you looked into the just war doctrine yet?
Yes, although it has been a while. Also, I already lean towards Christian serving in the military/police/government being okay. However, I suppose a more accurate title I should have used for my thread should have used the word "Civilian" instead of "Personal" since, like Rando, I don't hold to a personal/public dichotomy with Jesus' command "Love your enemies." and with what Paul says near the end of Romans 12. My question is more focused on the morality of civilians using self-defense and defending others after the New Covenant, while I think Romans 13 means it's good and okay for the government to do those things.

[Augustine2004]

Regarding Romans, it seems possible to me that self defense is not only permitted, it is commanded. "Abhor evil." It could mean that one is not only personally to avoid doing evil, but to prevent or stop others from doing evil if at all possible.

Government people can't be everywhere at all times. Police responses have been timed, and 6 minutes IIRC is a minimum. That's way too much time to stop a gunman massacring people. I think in any case Paul meant more that the government is to punish people than to protect people.

[Sir Wilshire]

Regarding Romans, it seems possible to me that self defense is not only permitted, it is commanded. "Abhor evil." It could mean that one is not only personally to avoid doing evil, but to prevent or stop others from doing evil if at all possible.

Government people can't be everywhere at all times. Police responses have been timed, and 6 minutes IIRC is a minimum. That's way too much time to stop a gunman massacring people. I think in any case Paul meant more that the government is to punish people than to protect people.

As to the first thing you said, that seems possible. Romans 12:18 also says "If it is possible, as far as it depends on you, live at peace with everyone." This could mean that self-defense would be permitted in situations where you could no longer live at peace, i.e. if they're trying to hurt you or some others. It really comes down to if violence in and of itself can be considered evil. Paul says not to return evil for evil, and to say that means self-defense isn't permitted assumes it is evil. Certainly taking revenge into your own hands is evil, but I think it may be a leap to put self-defense into the same category as revenge.

As to what you said about police response time; I think that is what makes this topic relevant. The question is should we do things non-violently to help until they get there, or do we do use violence if it were the only thing that could help until they got there? I would also say that when the Government punishes evil-doers they are also in a sense protecting them as well. I hope some pacifists add to this discussion soon.

[Amazing Rando]

I hope some pacifists add to this discussion soon.

Most of everything I'd ever want to say I've said already- scope out that file I attached in post #2. I'm in the process of editing it for publication (got a publisher lined up already!) so you can read it in pre-publication format there.

[Sir Wilshire]

I was searching the forum for what others had said about pacifism, and this thing Rando said I found helpful. I definitely agree with what he says about Just War Theory below.


Mark- in my book, it doesn't matter whether you call yourself by the Christian pacifist label or not, and abide by the abstract philosophical principles such a commitment would entail. The important thing for me is that you recognize that the good news of Jesus Christ is inherently a life-affirming one, and that as such, any decision to take human life is a very serious matter.

Classical "just war" thinking in its purest, most original form (such as that proffered by Augustine) respects this fact. Many modern day Christians who think they are being faithful to the just war theory are in fact simply attempting to cover their glorification of violence with pious language. In all its ugly unexamined assumptions, it's nothing more than a medieval crusader mentality.

I'd like to share a few brief comments from a seminary textbook of mine that address the legitimate application of just war criteria:


We have sought to make clear that any legitimate Christian use of just war theory must be based on nonviolence and justice, as taught by Jesus. A Christian who supports just war theory should see it as the most effective way to minimize violence and injustice, not merely to rationalize making war. "Just war theory does not try to justify war. Rather, it tries to bring war under the control of justice" [citing Holmes]... Walter Wink calls the rules of just war theory "violence-reduction criteria."
...

Just war theory should not be based on an argument that in a time of war, Jesus is no longer Lord and his wat is no longer relevant. Privatism argues that Jesus lordship and teachings on peacemaking apply only to individual, private relationships and not to the obligation of governments to seek peace.... It seems to us that all these ways of marginalizing and compartmentalizing Jesus' Lordship set up some other lord- the government, the need for retribution or nationalism- as lord over the rest of life. They are therefore idolatry...

We argue that just war theory is not autonomous. Either it serves the purpose of reducing violenceand seeking justice under Christ's lordship, or it serves some idolatrous loyalty such as rationalizing a war we have an urge to make...

Once Christians define just war theory as a way to try to decrease violence and injustice, they receive a second benefit: they are clearly affirming nonviolence and justice. So they can be more honest in affirming Jesus' teaching of peacemaking and justice. They no longer need to deny that Jesus teaches peacemaking in order to defend their loyalty to just war theory. That denial was a losing argument.... Rather, if they want to argue for just war theory, they need to argue that it is the most effective way to implement Jesus' way of peace and justice in a sinful world.

In other words, Christian pacifists and those who are seriously commited to the Augustinian just war tradition have this in common- they both affirm the inherent nonviolence of Jesus' gospel proclamation, and both seek ways to reduce the violence in the world. There is significant common ground between the Christian pacifist tradition (especially as it was lived out in the first three centuries after Christ) and the just war tradition which developed in the fourth century. What I and many others lament is the fact that many Christians have taken up the language of "just war," ripped out its heart and original intention (fidelity to Jesus' nonviolent gospel proclamation) and simply baptized it and employed it in the cause of idolatrous nationalism. The "just war" then becomes "whatever war my country happens to be fighting" and the "enemy" becomes "whoever my country tells me to kill."

I think this would mean if a war being proposed to be fought isn't just, soldiers of that country would be justified in refusing to fight (that would be quite radical too, I think). Also, at the very least, if self-defense is justified in certain situations, Jesus' command to love our enemies would mean we would only use the necessary violence to stop a threat to others or ourselves, and not just kill them.

Btw, I will talk a bit more about my thoughts on the passage in Luke above, and Rando, I'll read what you have to say about Jesus' command to love our enemies sometime after Monday.

[Amazing Rando]

I was searching the forum for what others had said about pacifism, and this thing Rando said I found helpful. I definitely agree with what he says about Just War Theory below.



I think this would mean if a war being proposed to be fought isn't just, soldiers of that country would be justified in refusing to fight (that would be quite radical too, I think).

:thumb: Indeed- just look at how few soldiers have actually refused to fight in the ongoing Iraq war, considering how miserably it fails the classical just war criteria, and how almost every major Christian denomination, including the Vatican, opposed the war at its outset.

One remarkable soldier who did refuse to serve in Iraq was 1st Lt. Ehren Watada, a native of Hawaii. He is not a pacifist (as evidenced by the fact that he is not seeking discharge as a conscientious objector), yet refused to serve in Iraq because he believed the Iraq war was both unjust and illegal. He volunteered to serve in Afghanistan instead, but that was disallowed, and he currently faces court-martial proceedings. We had a thread on Watada's amazing case here (http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?t=92007), if you're interested.

If you're interested in looking more into the side of just war theory that says "no" when wars fail to meet the theory's stringent criteria (which in theory should be almost all wars), John Howard Yoder's When War is Unjust: Being Honest in Just-War Thinking (http://www.amazon.com/When-War-Unjust-Just-War-Thinking/dp/1579107818/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1209823849&sr=8-1) is the best book out there. Yoder taught ethics to the future military officers of Notre Dame's ROTC program for many years, even though he himself was a pacifist, because he was convinced that if people are actually going to go to war, they need to seriously wrestle with the moral implications and concrete outcomes of their decisions.

[Amazing Rando]

Also, I would say that Jesus telling Peter not to use the sword was more likely due to the fact that Jesus knew he had to die, thus Peter was hindering that from coming to pass, and not to the idea that self-defense is always wrong.


One ancient Christian commentator who addressed the meaning of Jesus' rebuking Peter in the garden was Tertullian, writing at the very end of the 2nd century or the beginning of the 3rd. His comments refer more directly to military service than they do to self-defense more generally. This is from his treatise "On Idolatry (http://earlychristianwritings.com/text/tertullian02.html)":


But now inquiry is made about this point, whether a believer may turn himself unto military service, and whether the military may be admitted unto the faith, even the rank and file, or each inferior grade, to whom there is no necessity for taking part in sacrifices or capital punishments. There is no agreement between the divine and the human sacrament, the standard of Christ and the standard of the devil, the camp of light and the camp of darkness. One soul cannot be due to two masters--God and Caesar. And yet Moses carried a rod, and Aaron wore a buckle, and John (Baptist) is girt with leather and Joshua the son of Nun leads a line of march; and the People warred: if it pleases you to sport with the subject. But how will a Christian man war, nay, how will he serve even in peace, without a sword, which the Lord has taken away? For albeit soldiers had come unto John, and had received the formula of their rule; albeit, likewise, a centurion had believed; still the Lord afterward, in disarming Peter, unbelted every soldier.

Notice especially the inference Tertullian makes in the last two sentences. He regards the disarming and rebuking of Peter as a disarming and rebuking of all soldiers. As hard as it may be to believe, this is representative of the early church consensus of the first three centuries.

[Augustine2004]

Amazing R, if one saw that the only way to minimize violence in a situation was to use a certain bit of violence, should he so act?

[Amazing Rando]

Amazing R, if one saw that the only way to minimize violence in a situation was to use a certain bit of violence, should he so act?

Here's the thing, Auggie, I absolutely do not want to descend into the trap of legalism (which I'll admit is a very real danger), but at the same time I think it's critical that we take real stands on moral issues, including, in my judgment (and following the lead of the early church) that human bloodshed is incompatible with the way of life and discipleship Jesus set before us to emulate. Christian pacifists themselves disagree wildly on what degrees of force might be acceptable (see for example John Howard Yoder's great book Nevertheless: The Varieties and Shortcomings of Religious Pacifism (http://www.amazon.com/Nevertheless-Varieties-Shortcomings-Religious-Pacifism/dp/0836135865/ref=sr_1_4?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1209949213&sr=8-4)), but we share the conviction that Jesus' way is the way of nonviolence. What that necessarily looks like in every given situation is not prescribed as neatly as we would like in either the gospels or church tradition, so we're often forced to improvise based on what we know the Christian tradition does spell out clearly- for example, that killing another human being, even in self-defense, is contrary to the gospel.

One guy I went to seminary with was a blackbelt in aikido (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aikido)- it's a nonviolent form of the martial arts that, according to wikipedia has a great concern for the well-being of the attacker, even while defending oneself from attack. Or, I might try to tackle a crazy guy waving a gun around in a mall and subdue him that way.

Also, another book I strongly suggest is Robert Brimlow's remarkable meditation, What about Hitler?: Wrestling with Jesus's Call to Nonviolence in an Evil World (http://www.amazon.com/What-about-Hitler-Wrestling-Nonviolence/dp/1587430657/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1209949734&sr=8-1). It takes seriously the reality of evil (e.g. Hitler) while clingly faithfully to the gospel call to nonviolence.

[Augustine2004]

Amazing, thanks. I think you'll like Human Smoke, reviewed here http://mises.org/misesreview_detail.aspx?control=332 It does not explicitly call for pacificism, but it does show World War II to be far more evil than is commonly thought.

[Amazing Rando]

I've heard very good things about that book too. The point the review makes, that even World War 2 failed the criteria of jus in bello because of its deliberate, direct attacks on noncombatants and disproportionate use of force, is a very important one to note. And it goes to underscore the point that many critics of just-war theory make- that there has never in history been a war that has strictly adhered to all of the just war criteria. In effect, it's like communism- it's a good idea in theory, but it's never really been tried! :hehe:

[T-Shirt Ninja]

Also, another book I strongly suggest is Robert Brimlow's remarkable meditation, What about Hitler?: Wrestling with Jesus's Call to Nonviolence in an Evil World (http://www.amazon.com/What-about-Hitler-Wrestling-Nonviolence/dp/1587430657/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1209949734&sr=8-1). It takes seriously the reality of evil (e.g. Hitler) while clingly faithfully to the gospel call to nonviolence.

Hey Rando, does that book address the issue of Dietrich Bonhoeffer's attempted coup?

[LilPunkishOfTerror]

do you mean von Stauffenberg? (he was a Catholic)

[Amazing Rando]

Hey Rando, does that book address the issue of Dietrich Bonhoeffer's attempted coup?

Actually, yes! Got a chapter on it. Bonhoeffer was a Christian pacifist who had to answer the question "What about Hitler?" in a very real way!

What it is not is an air-tight logical apologetic for biblical pacifsm (although it does have elements of that, particularly in the early chapters). Brimlow is a radically orthodox Catholic in his own personal faith, but also a professor of philosophy at a university somewhere in NY state. The book is mainly a serious, brutally honest series of meditations on, as the subtitle says, wrestling with Jesus' call to nonviolence in a violent world. I have honestly never seen a book that combines strong argumentation with profound personal and theological meditation to the same degree Brimlow does. And it's written on the level the educated layperson can understand- not too technical, but not at all simplistic either. Truly great book for what it sets out to achieve.

[Amazing Rando]

do you mean von Stauffenberg? (he was a Catholic)

The great Lutheran theologian Dietrich Bonhoeffer, author of The Cost of Discipleship (http://www.amazon.com/Cost-Discipleship-Dietrich-Bonhoeffer/dp/0684815001/ref=pd_bbs_2?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1210037431&sr=8-2), was himself reluctantly involved in a failed attempt to assassinate Hitler in 1944 (at least he probably was- there is some historical uncertainty as to just how much, and even if he was really involved at all). Hitler had nearly all the co-conspirators brutally executed in retaliation, and many of them were strung up and hung with piano wire. Bonhoeffer was executed in 1945, just like 3 days before the death camp he was being held in was freed by the Russians.

His Letters and Papers from Prison (http://www.amazon.com/Letter-Papers-Prison-Dietrich-Bonhoeffer/dp/0684838273/ref=pd_sim_b_title_1) are a series of unfinished theological reflections he wrote on scraps of paper he found while he was in the concentration camp, but before he died.

[Augustine2004]

Amazing R, I'm curious about what you would do. If you found yourself in Bonhoeffer or von Stauffenberg's shoes, . . . If you find this difficult to answer, you don't have to.

[Amazing Rando]

Amazing R, I'm curious about what you would do. If you found yourself in Bonhoeffer or von Stauffenberg's shoes, . . . If you find this difficult to answer, you don't have to.

I can tell you what my head says I would/should do, but I can't tell you what my heart would compell me to do, given the circumstances. They're potentially two very different things.

What I want to say is that I would be a radically subversive nonviolent organizer, maybe even a sabateur, damaging equipment of the war machine (literally and figuratively). I'd want to concentrate resistance around the church, holding it up even in the midst of persecution as a beacon of light and hope against the regime's evils. Have you ever studied what Pope John Paul II did in Poland, both before and after he became Pope, to resist the autocratic communist regime there? His midnight masses held in defiance of the communist regime's orders to ban public religious celebrations transformed that country. Many would even say that without the hope that he kindled through his many acts of nonviolent resistance, communism in eastern Europe may never have fallen.

Likewise, had the churches in Germany not been coopted by Hitler, and had held on to the apostolic and prophetic witness against the Reich's evils, there's a very real chance Hitler never would have even risen to power, much less become the monster he turned into. Only the tiny "Confessing Church" movement, including Bonhoeffer and Karl Barth, stood firm. The vast majority of German Christianity was seduced by Hitler's entreaties and wound up supporting, or at least not standing in the way of his war machine.

[Augustine2004]

This is somewhat off-topic, but I think Amazing Rando would be interested. Lawrence Vance is an anti-war Christian, and I’ve just discovered that he sells copies of ‘classics.’ http://www.vancepublications.com/classic%20reprints.htm

[Augustine2004]

I just discovered a verse that made me wonder. 2 Corinth 7:5 The NCV version is, "When we came into Macedonia, we had no rest. We found trouble all around us. We had fighting on the outside and fear on the inside."

[Amazing Rando]

I just discovered a verse that made me wonder. 2 Corinth 7:5 The NCV version is, "When we came into Macedonia, we had no rest. We found trouble all around us. We had fighting on the outside and fear on the inside."

Wonder about what?

[Augustine2004]

What was the fighting?

[Amazing Rando]

What was the fighting?

He's referring to the opposition he routinely received when travelling around aggressively preaching the gospel. Later on in the epistle, he details some of that "fighting":

22Are they Hebrews? So am I. Are they Israelites? So am I. Are they Abraham's descendants? So am I. 23Are they servants of Christ? (I am out of my mind to talk like this.) I am more. I have worked much harder, been in prison more frequently, been flogged more severely, and been exposed to death again and again. 24Five times I received from the Jews the forty lashes minus one. 25Three times I was beaten with rods, once I was stoned, three times I was shipwrecked, I spent a night and a day in the open sea, 26I have been constantly on the move. I have been in danger from rivers, in danger from bandits, in danger from my own countrymen, in danger from Gentiles; in danger in the city, in danger in the country, in danger at sea; and in danger from false brothers. 27I have labored and toiled and have often gone without sleep; I have known hunger and thirst and have often gone without food; I have been cold and naked.

See all the times he was beaten, stoned, rejected, flogged, etc? That's the opposition and fighting he's talking about.

(I subtly note that not once does he boast about how mighty he was in his own defense and how he kicked the asses of those who assailed him. :wink:)

[Augustine2004]

Okay, but how did he protect himself from bandits?

[Amazing Rando]

Who's saying he did? :teeth: That doesn't seem to be a big theme he addresses in his letters.

[Tundrawolf]

America is one of the Godliest countries ever to have existed, IMO. We didn't get this way by letting our enemies have their way with us. To say God hasn't blessed this country would be a lie.

[Amazing Rando]

America is one of the Godliest countries ever to have existed, IMO. We didn't get this way by letting our enemies have their way with us. To say God hasn't blessed this country would be a lie.

:rofl:

[Sir Wilshire]

So does anyone have any recommendations for books that compare both positions well in terms of how they justify them from Scripture?

[Amazing Rando]

So does anyone have any recommendations for books that compare both positions well in terms of how they justify them from Scripture?

When War is Unjust: Being Honest in Just War Thinking, by John Howard Yoder.

Yoder was personally a Christian pacifist who taught just war theory to ROTC students at Notre Dame University, so he knows how to walk the fence quite well.

[Sir Wilshire]

Thanks, but I've already read that. I thought Yoder was just focusing on whether people who hold to just war theory have been willing to apply it for all it is worth and challenging them to do so. I'm more looking for a book that discusses how each side forms their position from Scripture.

[Amazing Rando]

Thanks, but I've already read that. I thought Yoder was just focusing on whether people who hold to just war theory have been willing to apply it for all it is worth and challenging them to do so. I'm more looking for a book that discusses how each side forms their position from Scripture.

Lisa Sowle Cahill, Love Your Enemies: Discipleship, Pacifism, and Just War Theory.

I'll be teaching a course at my seminary entitled The Cross and the Sword this coming semester in which we'll be exploring these issues in depth. Cahill's book is one of our textbooks.

[TheologicalDisc]

I believe an easy answer to this dilemma is to realize how God views self defense. In the ot we have God providing food, water, and land to the he Hebrews, but did not provide much in the way of combat and fighting. In fact in the book of exodus, I believe ex 21 states that if 2 men fight and no one dies as a result, neither man is to be punished. I think God is ok with fighting and self defense because it is a form of discipline I think that is why God provided food and water but allowed the Hebrews to fight and train, because both are excellent sources of discipline. I think when Jesus said "you live by the sword, you die by the sword" He was talking about the consequences of exclusively living that way of life but fighting within Gods laws are ok. After all the commanent is do not murder not do not kill. There is a huge difference between the two

[Sir Wilshire]

Lisa Sowle Cahill, Love Your Enemies: Discipleship, Pacifism, and Just War Theory.

I'll be teaching a course at my seminary entitled The Cross and the Sword this coming semester in which we'll be exploring these issues in depth. Cahill's book is one of our textbooks.

Looks promising. Can you get it at a chain bookstore, or is Amazon my best bet?

[Amazing Rando]

Looks promising. Can you get it at a chain bookstore, or is Amazon my best bet?

It was published in 1994, so Barnes and Noble and Borders probably won't have it. Go through CBD.com or amazon.

Not to prejudice you or anything, but you said that you were looking for books that "compare both positions well in terms of how they justify them from Scripture." Cahill's book does that, but in general, just war theory is not derived directly from Scripture. That does not necessarily invalidate it of course, but it's important to realize that just war thinking comes from external categories which many feel to be compatible with the principles Scripture teaches. It was first put forth by the Greek philosopher Cicero a few centuries before Christ, and only later "Christianized" by Augustine and Ambrose. All that is to say that I have actually never encountered a book on just war theory that reasons directly from Scripture. Maybe I wil be surpised someday to find one, but I haven't yet.

Generally then, Father George Zabelka was correct when he said that just war theory is “something that Christ never taught or even hinted at.” (http://http://www.gregboyd.org/essays/kingdom-living/does-following-jesus-rule-out-serving-in-the-military-if-a-war-is-just/). If violence is indeed a necessary evil for Christian disciples, you've got to look at sources other than Jesus Christ to justify it.

In any case, I wish you good luck on your reading.

[Augustine2004]

Oh, come on, an evil that is necessary?

[Amazing Rando]

According to the classical just war theory, yes that's precisely what a just war is- all war is evil from the point of view of real just war theory, but some of it may be sadly necessary. Classical just war theory says that war can never be a positive good, only a lesser evil than inaction.

It's this viewpoint that prevents the strict just war mentality from degenerating into a crusading mindset. A major difference between just war and crusading mentality is that the crusading mentality sees its violence as good, right, even holy. Just war thinking says that its violence remains evil, even if it is justifiable under some tightly controlled circumstances.

As an example of how this would play out, St. Basil ("The Great") of Caesarea in the late 4th century said that while killing in a just war may be justifiable, he said that those who do kill in war must refrain from taking part in the Eucharist for three years as penance.

[Sir Wilshire]

Not to prejudice you or anything, but you said that you were looking for books that "compare both positions well in terms of how they justify them from Scripture." Cahill's book does that, but in general, just war theory is not derived directly from Scripture. That does not necessarily invalidate it of course, but it's important to realize that just war thinking comes from external categories which many feel to be compatible with the principles Scripture teaches. It was first put forth by the Greek philosopher Cicero a few centuries before Christ, and only later "Christianized" by Augustine and Ambrose. All that is to say that I have actually never encountered a book on just war theory that reasons directly from Scripture. Maybe I wil be surpised someday to find one, but I haven't yet.

Yeah, I know the theory isn't explicitly taught in Scripture. I'll just be looking to see if the NT allows for self-defense to be justified in some cases.

[Augustine2004]

According to the classical just war theory, yes that's precisely what a just war is- all war is evil from the point of view of real just war theory, but some of it may be sadly necessary. Classical just war theory says that war can never be a positive good, only a lesser evil than inaction.

It's this viewpoint that prevents the strict just war mentality from degenerating into a crusading mindset. A major difference between just war and crusading mentality is that the crusading mentality sees its violence as good, right, even holy. Just war thinking says that its violence remains evil, even if it is justifiable under some tightly controlled circumstances.

As an example of how this would play out, St. Basil ("The Great") of Caesarea in the late 4th century said that while killing in a just war may be justifiable, he said that those who do kill in war must refrain from taking part in the Eucharist for three years as penance.I'm not sure I understand. As long as killing is not murder war can be just.

[Amazing Rando]

Yeah, I know the theory isn't explicitly taught in Scripture. I'll just be looking to see if the NT allows for self-defense to be justified in some cases.

Good luck! I'd be very interested in any insights you may have on the Cahill book. It'll help in my preparations for class.


I'm not sure I understand. As long as killing is not murder war can be just.

:hrm: Is that a question or an assertion?

Most people totally misunderstand the point of just war theory- it's not about "justifying war." It's about bringing the horrors and excesses of war more into line with Christian ideals of justice by positing some very, very strict conditions in order to tightly constrain both the launching of a war and the conduct of said war.

[Augustine2004]

Christian ideals of justice = principles or commandments in the Bible or that can be logically inferred from the Bible, yes?

[Amazing Rando]

Christian ideals of justice = principles or commandments in the Bible or that can be logically inferred from the Bible, yes?

Yes, that's what classical just war theory would claim.

[phase]

Ethically it is ok to kill people given the right circumstances. Morally it is not. Years ago, when the draft was afoot, many people refuse to kill because of their religious beliefs (thou shall not kill) but were willing to serve their country in one of the many needed supporting roles. Defending a person is not the same as going out and kicking butt. To defend a woman who is being raped isn't like living by the sword. Knock the guy(s) out if you can and let man have his justice and God have his in his time. Killing out of "anger" isn't the same as a "necessity". David wouldn't kill one of Gods' chosen even though Saul keep on trying to kill him. David was no wimp and had a couple of chances to kill Saul but trusted in God for Gods' will to be done. Must have been difficult choice for David not to kill Saul , choosing instead to give Saul the heads up that he could have killed him.

[Augustine2004]

What's the difference between ethics and morals?

[phase]

lol ... There many books wrote about this and it is so subjective as well as objective. My perception, and it is very much generalized, is that ethics are justification for lack of morals. That is a true statement as well as being a false statement depending on ones' perspective(s).

[Daniel Keeran]

As others may have said, the early church was unanimous as far as I know, in their adherence to non-retaliation extending even to the use of violence in self-defense. Rather than using violence, all biblical cases show the disciples as victims of violence but never resorting to the use of force. Jesus as the Son of God used force in the temple to drive out merchants, but this was in fulfilment of messianic prophecy. Not until the time of Augustine do we find justification for the use of force.

[Augustine2004]

As others may have said, the early church was unanimous as far as I know, in their adherence to non-retaliation extending even to the use of violence in self-defense.Threatening to use violence for self defense is not retaliation. And it has to pointed out that at least one disciple did bring a sword to the scene where Judas kissed Jesus.
Rather than using violence, all biblical cases show the disciples as victims of violence but never resorting to the use of force.Phooey, the servant's ear, remember? I concede, though, that it does not by itself create a precedent we should follow.

[Daniel Keeran]

Threatening to use violence for self defense is not retaliation. And it has to pointed out that at least one disciple did bring a sword to the scene where Judas kissed Jesus.Phooey, the servant's ear, remember? I concede, though, that it does not by itself create a precedent we should follow.

Please don't say phooey.

OK now, early Christians did not threaten to use violence or use retaliation. As for Peter, we agree that Peter was rebuked for using the sword. His carrying a sword was perhaps due to his lack of understanding of Jesus' mission and also fulfilled the prophecy that Jesus would be "numbered among transgressors." Luke 22:36-38

He said to them, "But now if you have a purse, take it, and also a bag; and if you don't have a sword, sell your cloak and buy one. 37It is written: 'And he was numbered with the transgressors; and I tell you that this must be fulfilled in me. Yes, what is written about me is reaching its fulfillment." The disciples said, "See, Lord, here are two swords."
"That is enough," he replied.

[Obsidian]

Jesus said, "Blessed are the peacemakers." Supposedly, the term "peacemaker" was most often applied to the Roman emperors, who kept the peace through force.

There is nothing wrong with self-defense. People who say otherwise have a defective interpretation of various stand-alone Bible verses, and they fall prey to the sickness embodied in these words:

"Such regulations indeed have an appearance of wisdom, with their self-imposed worship, their false humility and their harsh treatment of the body, but they lack any value in restraining sensual indulgence."

Just because something is harmful to you, does not mean it benefits God!

[Augustine2004]

Supposedly, the term "peacemaker" was most often applied to the Roman emperors, who kept the peace through force.
Supposedly? Anyway, any reference or citation?

[Obsidian]

I first saw it mentioned on tektonics.org, but you can also search on google and find others making the same claim.

The Bible doesn't condemn all violence. In places, God explicitly commands violence and praises people for killing others. (E.g., Samuel condemns Saul for failing to kill the Amalekite leader.) Jesus specifically told his disciples to purchase swords (if they didn't have any), and the Bible even praises the government for using "the sword" against wicked men. Plain reason also tells us that violence against an evildoer is morally justified, so neither the Bible nor our consciences condemn all violence.

[Radrook]

Jesus' whole purpose on earth was to oppose evil by payng the Ransom sacrifice. So he could not have meant not to oppose evil.

[Daniel Keeran]

I first saw it mentioned on tektonics.org, but you can also search on google and find others making the same claim.

The Bible doesn't condemn all violence. In places, God explicitly commands violence and praises people for killing others. (E.g., Samuel condemns Saul for failing to kill the Amalekite leader.) Jesus specifically told his disciples to purchase swords (if they didn't have any), and the Bible even praises the government for using "the sword" against wicked men. Plain reason also tells us that violence against an evildoer is morally justified, so neither the Bible nor our consciences condemn all violence.

There needs to be a distinction in the covenants. In the OT God's people were a theocracy in which God commanded and gave power to Israel to fight battles; in the NT Jesus says, John 18:36, "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."

Paul says in 2 Corinthians 10:3-6 "For though we live in the world, we do not wage war as the world does. The weapons we fight with are not the weapons of the world. On the contrary, they have divine power to demolish strongholds. We demolish arguments and every pretension that sets itself up against the knowledge of God, and we take captive every thought to make it obedient to Christ. And we will be ready to punish every act of disobedience, once your obedience is complete."

[Daniel Keeran]

Jesus' whole purpose on earth was to oppose evil by payng the Ransom sacrifice. So he could not have meant not to oppose evil.

We oppose evil with spiritual weapons.
Ephesians 6:12-13
"For our struggle is not against flesh and blood, but against the rulers, against the authorities, against the powers of this dark world and against the spiritual forces of evil in the heavenly realms. Therefore put on the full armor of God, so that when the day of evil comes, you may be able to stand your ground, and after you have done everything, to stand."

[Daniel Keeran]

Jesus said, "Blessed are the peacemakers." Supposedly, the term "peacemaker" was most often applied to the Roman emperors, who kept the peace through force.

There is nothing wrong with self-defense. People who say otherwise have a defective interpretation of various stand-alone Bible verses, and they fall prey to the sickness embodied in these words:

"Such regulations indeed have an appearance of wisdom, with their self-imposed worship, their false humility and their harsh treatment of the body, but they lack any value in restraining sensual indulgence."

Just because something is harmful to you, does not mean it benefits God!

Matthew 5:38-47
"You have heard that it was said, 'Eye for eye, and tooth for tooth.'But I tell you, Do not resist an evil person. If someone strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also. And if someone wants to sue you and take your tunic, let him have your cloak as well. If someone forces you to go one mile, go with him two miles. Give to the one who asks you, and do not turn away from the one who wants to borrow from you.

"You have heard that it was said, 'Love your neighbor[h] and hate your enemy.' But I tell you: Love your enemies[i] and pray for those who persecute you, that you may be sons of your Father in heaven. He causes his sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous. If you love those who love you, what reward will you get? Are not even the tax collectors doing that? And if you greet only your brothers, what are you doing more than others? Do not even pagans do that?"

[Augustine2004]

I first saw it mentioned on tektonics.org, but you can also search on google and find others making the same claim.

The Bible doesn't condemn all violence. In places, God explicitly commands violence and praises people for killing others. (E.g., Samuel condemns Saul for failing to kill the Amalekite leader.) Jesus specifically told his disciples to purchase swords (if they didn't have any), and the Bible even praises the government for using "the sword" against wicked men. Plain reason also tells us that violence against an evildoer is morally justified, so neither the Bible nor our consciences condemn all violence.I googled “peacemakers emperor”; one item concerned Napoleon, certainly not a peacemaker, though he was apparently called that. Or, did he call himself that?

I doubt Jesus was talking about the Roman emperors.


Daniel Keeran, your conclusions or implications are non sequitur. Yes, we must oppose evil with Christian spiritual weapons. However, there is no explicit prohibition against using physical weapons to defend people. Jesus gave a reason that is not necessarily applicable to all times and people: “My kingdom is not of this world . . . “ Only Jesus is the King. If you disagree, you will have to put forth a better argument.

[Obsidian]

Your first two verses condemn holy wars (i.e., wars unjustified except for the purpose of converting people).

The second two verses condemn revenge -- and for that matter, revenge in relatively small matters (personal insult, military drafting, and charitable causes).

None of them condemns self-defense. And as I said before, Jesus explicitly told his disciples to buy swords if they didn't have any. So unless you can think of a non-self-defense use for a sword, you cannot condemn self-defense.

And I'm not sure what is so "loving" about allowing gross evil to flourish. God loved the peoples of Soddom and Gommorah, but also realized when their time had come.

[Obsidian]

Here's what I was talking about, Augustine:


"Blessed are the peacemakers" -- you can guess, Colmes says, "Evil dictators like Saddam Hussein aren't getting blessings here, but neither are those who would initiate war against them. And I'm guessing Jesus is endorsing the Nuclear Test Ban Treaty." Guess again. Rome gave the name Pax Romana to a period that had peace because they made it so with military force. Keener (Matthew commentary, 169) notes that this rare word was used most often of the Roman Emperors; it refers to those seek reconciliation of enmity, and using war to do so is not excluded on that basis contextually. -- http://www.tektonics.org/af/colmes01.html

Also, here:

Robert Morey points out in his book, When Is It Right to Fight? that Caesar…was called “the Peacemaker” because he won and maintained peace by the use of force. The word does not mean “peaceable” or “pacificst” or “peace at any price.” The word meant “peace through strength.” As such, it named the head of the Roman army without contradiction. -- http://www.tillhecomes.org/Text%20Sermons/Matthew/Matt5_9.pdf

[Obsidian]

And I should say further that any supposed consensus among early Christians means very little, considering Jesus urged violence in certain instances. As someone mentioned earlier in the thread, many Christians became practically suicidal in their search for martyrdom. Maybe all these early Christians were merely deceived because they didn't yet have the New Testament to read.

Whenever church tradition and scripture conflict, which side wins?

[Augustine2004]

Here's what I was talking about, Augustine:

-- http://www.tektonics.org/af/colmes01.html

Also, here:
-- http://www.tillhecomes.org/Text%20Sermons/Matthew/Matt5_9.pdfSo, what did Jesus mean? I suppose we shall never know for sure.

[Sir Wilshire]

Please don't say phooey.

OK now, early Christians did not threaten to use violence or use retaliation. As for Peter, we agree that Peter was rebuked for using the sword. His carrying a sword was perhaps due to his lack of understanding of Jesus' mission and also fulfilled the prophecy that Jesus would be "numbered among transgressors." Luke 22:36-38

This isn't the correct interpretation. The transgressors refers to all humanity (sinners), not the disciples. Look around page 2 or 3 of this thread for the right way to look at it.


Plain reason also tells us that violence against an evildoer is morally justified, so neither the Bible nor our consciences condemn all violence.

Actually, I find it hard to say the violence done by the ancient theocracy of Israel was morally justified (certainly sovereignly justified though). As Amazing Rando notes in his thesis paper posted on the first page of this thread,

In the Ancient Near East, the concept of kingship was directly tied to the warrior power- he who was king was also expected to be the chief warrior. An excellent illustration of this correlation between kingship and the warrior role can be found in 1 Samuel 8:19-20, in which the people refuse to listen to Samuel’s warning about the consequences of human kingship, saying “We want a king over us. Then we will be like all the other nations, with a king to lead us and to go out before us and fight our battles.” Thus, in their rejection of YHWH’s kingship, the people also tragically rejected his gracious provision. Not satisfied to have the unconquerable warrior God to fight their battles for them, they chose the weakness of a human warrior to fight in God’s stead.

Israel employing violence to accomplish God's will was not his original moral intention, so He made a concession (one among many in the OT of course).


None of them condemns self-defense. And as I said before, Jesus explicitly told his disciples to buy swords if they didn't have any. So unless you can think of a non-self-defense use for a sword, you cannot condemn self-defense.

This can't really be used to justify self-defense. See http://www.tektonics.org/lp/noswords.html and Amazing Rando's commentary on this passage in his thesis mentioned above.


Here's what I was talking about, Augustine:

-- http://www.tektonics.org/af/colmes01.html

Also, here:
-- http://www.tillhecomes.org/Text%20Sermons/Matthew/Matt5_9.pdf

Thanks for that. It's helpful for my current study.

[Obsidian]

I'm afraid the link you cited doesn't disagree with me:


This would most likely have been a Jewish short sword - a dagger used as protection against wild animals and robbers

I think it's a little arrogant of Holding to assume that he knows exactly how long the swords were, but he nonetheless admits that any type of sword may be used for self-defense.

And Rando's suggestion that Jesus was being metaphorical is just plainly absurd. Even if it were true, and if Jesus believed all violence were wrong, he would have explicitly told his disciples to get rid of their literal swords once he saw that they had them.

But of course Jesus didn't condemn them or anything of the sort. Even when Peter cut the guy's ear off, Jesus didn't condemn him; he just warned him not to live a dangerous lifestyle. ("He who lives by the sword will die by the sword.") Moreover, it's important to note Jesus's only reason for letting himself get arrested. He made it clear, at various points, that his mission in coming to Earth was to die. As far as we can tell from the Bible, if Jesus had not intended to crucify himself for the good of mankind, he would have had no problem with killing Judas and all the guards.


Jesus commanded Peter, "Put your sword away! Shall I not drink the cup the Father has given me?"


Do you think I cannot call on my Father, and he will at once put at my disposal more than twelve legions of angels? But how then would the Scriptures be fulfilled that say it must happen in this way?"

Since long before the Mosaic law, God even made the following pronouncement: "Whoever sheds the blood of man, by man shall his blood be shed -- For in the image of God has God made man." (Genesis 9:6). That was the Word of God, and Jesus is the Word of God incarnate. It stands to reason that Jesus would agree with such a principle.

If you try to argue that violence is implicitly sinful -- as some in this thread do -- you are making the same mistakes that the ancient Pharisees made. You are adding to the word of God. And on top of that, you are burdening your fellow Christians (or attempting to) with man-made laws -- and doing little to help others follow those artificial rules. To condemn others for righteous acts or even for morally neutral acts is simply wrong. And if you condemn such acts in the name of God, you are arguably using his name in vain.

[Daniel Keeran]

I googled “peacemakers emperor”; one item concerned Napoleon, certainly not a peacemaker, though he was apparently called that. Or, did he call himself that?

I doubt Jesus was talking about the Roman emperors.


Daniel Keeran, your conclusions or implications are non sequitur. Yes, we must oppose evil with Christian spiritual weapons. However, there is no explicit prohibition against using physical weapons to defend people. Jesus gave a reason that is not necessarily applicable to all times and people: “My kingdom is not of this world . . . “ Only Jesus is the King. If you disagree, you will have to put forth a better argument.

Does love of enemy explicitly preclude hatred of one's enemy? Does doing good to one's enemy explicitly preclude doing evil to one's enemy? Does gentleness, kindness, patient endurance in suffering unjust attack (1 Peter 2:20-22), preclude use of violence against the unjust? Christians in the NT only suffered violence and never used physical weapons of defense although they had many opportunities to do so. Paul was a victim of conspiracy by the Jews (Acts 23:20-21) but said he had no charge to bring against them (Acts 28:19).

[Obsidian]

It wasn't exactly violence, but I remember that Peter left his cell even though he (presumably) knew the guards would be executed following his escape. When faced with a similar option, Paul made the opposite decision, but there's no reason to think he had to. It was charity.

Overall, I think anyone with common sense realizes that if a mob is throwing rocks at you (or whatever else), violence in self-defense is not much of an option. The Bible doesn't really present any scenarios where Christians had the opportunity to utilize self-defense -- except when Peter defended Jesus, which as I said, Jesus never condemned.

1 Peter 20-22 tells slaves to act honorably so that if they are beaten, God will reward their suffering. If they receive beatings that they deserve based on their misconduct, God will not reward them. The passage has very little to do with self-defense. Like I said, self-defense isn't always a realistic option.

If you want to say that God condemns self-defense, you have the duty of proving it. No one should ever obey a doctrine merely because it seems the harshest, and therefore the most "spiritual." If you condemn something in God's name but apart from God's commandments, aren't you using his name in vain?

[Daniel Keeran]

It wasn't exactly violence, but I remember that Peter left his cell even though he (presumably) knew the guards would be executed following his escape. When faced with a similar option, Paul made the opposite decision, but there's no reason to think he had to. It was charity.

Overall, I think anyone with common sense realizes that if a mob is throwing rocks at you (or whatever else), violence in self-defense is not much of an option. The Bible doesn't really present any scenarios where Christians had the opportunity to utilize self-defense -- except when Peter defended Jesus, which as I said, Jesus never condemned.

1 Peter 20-22 tells slaves to act honorably so that if they are beaten, God will reward their suffering. If they receive beatings that they deserve based on their misconduct, God will not reward them. The passage has very little to do with self-defense. Like I said, self-defense isn't always a realistic option.

If you want to say that God condemns self-defense, you have the duty of proving it. No one should ever obey a doctrine merely because it seems the harshest, and therefore the most "spiritual." If you condemn something in God's name but apart from God's commandments, aren't you using his name in vain?

A test on one's conclusion can be to compare it with others closest to the biblical period. In this case, the consensus of early church fathers was pacifism until the legalization of Christianity. There is no doubt in my mind that pacifism was the intent of the Prince of Peace and his apostles, in fulfillment of Isaiah 2:4 and Isaiah 11: 9. The NT has Christians being physically attacked and not a single instance of Christians making a physical defense except Peter who was told, "Put away your sword. All who live by the sword shall die by the sword" (Matthew 26:52).

[Augustine2004]

I'm not certain if this is applicable

Leviticus 19:18 Forget about the wrong things people do to you, and do not try to get even. (NCV).

Of course it does not necessarily mean that you cannot defend yourself. Peter did carry a sword, after all. A reason Jesus told Peter to put away his sword and said that about dying by the sword was that Jesus came down to be sacrificed, and nothing should be allowed to interfere with that mission. To be sure, the force that came to arrest Jesus was overwhelming, and that's another reason, which sort of trumps the reason given above.

Various kinds of pacifism are possible. One is refusing to serve in the military. Individual self-defense or defense of someone or a small group is not necessarily ruled out.

[Obsidian]

Daniel, I'm pretty sure your characterization of early Christians is actually false (http://www.churchinhistory.org/pages/misc/ch-war-pac.htm) (see the link), but even if you were correct, we would be obliged to find a commandment somewhere in the Bible before we bind people's consciences in God's name. A lot of people believed a lot of dumb things back then (e.g., Gnosticism, and Jewish ceramonialism), which frustrated Paul to no end and prompted some of our New Testament Epistles.

Since you've spread this argument from condemning self-defense to condemning all violence (what you call "pacifism"), I should note that Cornelius, one of the earliest gentile Christians, was a soldier. Not only that, but Paul seemingly praises the government for utilizing the sword, and suggests that soldiers are representatives of God.

We can't just start making up rules and condemning people for them where God hasn't spoken. If we act that way, we're no better than the Pharisees who condemned Jesus for not washing his hands. I really couldn't care less whether there is "any doubt in your mind." You need to examine God's word and make a right judgment. Otherwise, you are like the people Paul condemns,


Such regulations indeed have an appearance of wisdom, with their self-imposed worship, their false humility and their harsh treatment of the body, but they lack any value in restraining sensual indulgence.

[Daniel Keeran]

I'm not certain if this is applicable

Leviticus 19:18 Forget about the wrong things people do to you, and do not try to get even. (NCV).

Of course it does not necessarily mean that you cannot defend yourself. Peter did carry a sword, after all. A reason Jesus told Peter to put away his sword and said that about dying by the sword was that Jesus came down to be sacrificed, and nothing should be allowed to interfere with that mission. To be sure, the force that came to arrest Jesus was overwhelming, and that's another reason, which sort of trumps the reason given above.

Various kinds of pacifism are possible. One is refusing to serve in the military. Individual self-defense or defense of someone or a small group is not necessarily ruled out.

I see willingness to suffer unjust attack in the NT but I do not see use of physical force for self-defense although there were many scenarios in the NT where this could have been described.

[Daniel Keeran]

Daniel, I'm pretty sure your characterization of early Christians is actually false (http://www.churchinhistory.org/pages/misc/ch-war-pac.htm) (see the link), but even if you were correct, we would be obliged to find a commandment somewhere in the Bible before we bind people's consciences in God's name. A lot of people believed a lot of dumb things back then (e.g., Gnosticism, and Jewish ceramonialism), which frustrated Paul to no end and prompted some of our New Testament Epistles.

Since you've spread this argument from condemning self-defense to condemning all violence (what you call "pacifism"), I should note that Cornelius, one of the earliest gentile Christians, was a soldier. Not only that, but Paul seemingly praises the government for utilizing the sword, and suggests that soldiers are representatives of God.

We can't just start making up rules and condemning people for them where God hasn't spoken. If we act that way, we're no better than the Pharisees who condemned Jesus for not washing his hands. I really couldn't care less whether there is "any doubt in your mind." You need to examine God's word and make a right judgment. Otherwise, you are like the people Paul condemns,

There was the Philipian jailer too as well as Cornelius. The NT does not give the after-lives of these converts but we know that if Cornelius and the Jailer were required to use force against Christians, they surely would have refused. And what about the teaching of "love yur enemies"? And, what about christians on opposite sides of the battle. No. logic demands christians not participate in bearing arms or in self-defense by force. "My kingdom is not of this world." "You are IN the world but not OF the world."

[Augustine2004]

logic demands christians not participate in bearing arms or in self-defense by force.You have to explain Peter's sword that he used to cut off that ear. The two swords that Jesus said was enough.

[Daniel Keeran]

You have to explain Peter's sword that he used to cut off that ear. The two swords that Jesus said was enough.

BEFORE THE ARREST

Luke 22:36-39
He said to them, "But now if you have a purse, take it, and also a bag; and if you don't have a SWORD, sell your cloak and buy one. 37 It is written: 'And he was numbered with the transgressors; and I tell you that this must be fulfilled in me. Yes, what is written about me is reaching its FULFILLMENT."
The disciples said, "See, Lord, here are two swords."
"That is enough," he replied.

DURING THE ARREST

Matthew 26:51-52
With that, one of Jesus' companions reached for his SWORD, drew it out and struck the servant of the high priest, cutting off his ear.
"Put your SWORD BACK in its place," Jesus said to him, "for ALL WHO DRAW the sword will die by the sword. Do you think I cannot call on my Father, and he will at once put at my disposal more than twelve legions of angels?

John 18:10-11
Then Simon Peter, who had a SWORD, drew it and struck the high priest's servant, cutting off his right ear. (The servant's name was Malchus.) Jesus commanded Peter, "Put your SWORD AWAY! Shall I not drink the cup the Father has given me?"


DURING THE TRIAL AFTER PETER HAD DRAWN THE SWORD

John 18:36
Jesus 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."

[Daniel Keeran]

Daniel, I'm pretty sure your characterization of early Christians is actually false (http://www.churchinhistory.org/pages/misc/ch-war-pac.htm) (see the link), but even if you were correct, we would be obliged to find a commandment somewhere in the Bible before we bind people's consciences in God's name. A lot of people believed a lot of dumb things back then (e.g., Gnosticism, and Jewish ceramonialism), which frustrated Paul to no end and prompted some of our New Testament Epistles.

Since you've spread this argument from condemning self-defense to condemning all violence (what you call "pacifism"), I should note that Cornelius, one of the earliest gentile Christians, was a soldier. Not only that, but Paul seemingly praises the government for utilizing the sword, and suggests that soldiers are representatives of God.

We can't just start making up rules and condemning people for them where God hasn't spoken. If we act that way, we're no better than the Pharisees who condemned Jesus for not washing his hands. I really couldn't care less whether there is "any doubt in your mind." You need to examine God's word and make a right judgment. Otherwise, you are like the people Paul condemns,

The following is from "Radical Christianity: Peace and Justice in the New Testament."

The Early Church Before Augustine
The non-violence position among the early post-apostolic church writers until the fourth century is significant in reflecting the universality of its acceptance in the church and because of the biblical reasons used by the early church writers. The similarity of the early Christian view in the second century with that of the biblical record, is such that a representative sample from the early post-apostolic treatises will serve to summarize the major points of our thesis.

The non-resistant suffering and death of the innocent Saviour at the hands of his enemies was foremost in the minds of those early Christians. His example gave new meaning to love and provided an important rationale for the practice of non-violence.

Ignatius of Antioch
“And let us imitate the Lord, ‘who, when he was reviled, reviled not again’; when he was crucified, He said, ‘Father, forgive them, they know not what they do.’ If anyone, the more he is injured, displays the more patience, blessed is he” (Ignatius of Antioch, 80-140 A.D., Epistle to the Ephesians). As we have seen from scripture, this kind of suffering elicited joy from the early Christians, and they were encouraged to be meek and patient as a testimony of the life and death, love and forgiveness, of Christ himself. To endure suffering as Jesus endured is to suffer for his sake because the testimony of Christ is in such suffering.

Tertullian and Athenagoras
Among the early church writers, the “resist not” statement in the Sermon on the Mount was regarded as a major premise of the non-resistance ethic and was directly related to prohibitions against Christians’ going to court as plaintiffs or to war against anyone. Notice also the allusions to prophecies regarding the Messianic kingdom and to the unique and primary calling of Christians to the ministry of reconciliation.

In the context of a defense of Christian pacifism Tertullian argues, “Shall the son of peace take part in the battle when it does not become him even to sue at law?” (200 A.D., On the Crown) Corroborating Paul’s description of the Corinthians (II Cor. 11:20), Athenagoras shows the general understanding among Christians was against their taking plaintiff action: “We have learned not only not to return blow for blow, nor to go to law with those who plunder and rob us, but to those who smite us on one side of the face to offer the other side also…” (177 A.D., A Plea for Christians).

Justin Martyr and Ireneaus
Justin Martyr believed the church was the literal fulfillment of Isaiah’s kingdom prophecy (Is. 2:1-4). “We who were filled with war and mutual slaughter and every wickedness, have each through the whole earth changed our war-like weapons, our swords into plowshares and our spears into implements of tillage, and we cultivate piety, righteousness, philanthropy, faith and hope…” (150 A.D., Dialogue with Trypho).

Irenaeus concurred with this and also related the prophetic fulfillment to Jesus’ instructions concerning non-resistance. “But if the law of liberty, that is, the word of God, preached by the apostles…. Caused such a change in the state of things, that these nations did form the war-lances into plowshares… that is into instruments used for peaceful purposes… and when smitten offer also the other cheek…” (183 A.D., Against Heresies).

Origen and Hippolytus
Origen bases his anti-war stand upon the church as being the literal fulfillment of Isaiah’s prophecy and as having a unique ministry of peace. “We no longer take up ‘sword against nation’ nor do we ‘learn war anymore’ having become children of peace for the sake of Jesus who is our leader” (225 A.D., Against Celsus).

Celsus was a pagan critic of Christianity who recognized that non-violence was the common practice among Christians. He commented, “If everyone should do the same as you, nothing would prevent the emperor from being left alone and deserted, and the affairs of the whole earth would come into the hands of the most lawless and wildest barbarians” (Against Celsus). Origen did not deny Celsus’ fear that if everyone became Christian the emperor would be left alone to rule, but Origen’s reply was that Christians “recognize in each city another native constitution, created by the word of God… Christians decline public offices not in order to escape these duties but in order to keep themselves for a more divine and necessary service in the church of God for the salvation of men” (Against Celsus). Origen recognized the unique mission and calling of the kingdom of God and believed this precludes Christians participating in the ruling processes of worldly kingdoms.

For Hippolytus the application of non-violence is precise and includes prohibitions of a Christian’s becoming a soldier, ruler, or judge. “A soldier of the government must be told NOT TO EXECUTE MEN men; if he shall be ordered to do it, he shall not do it. He must be told not to take the military oath. If he will not agree, let him be rejected (from baptism). A military governor or a magistrate of a city who wears the purple, either let him desist or let him be rejected. If a catechumen or a baptized Christian wishes to become a soldier, let him be cast out. For he has despised God…” (220 A.D., Apostolic Tradition). Tertullian had earlier found similar occupations to be inconsistent with the Christian walk when he wrote, “And shall he apply the chain and the prison and the torture and the punishment, who is not the avenger even of his own wrongs?” (On the Crown).

The radical ethic of non-violence with its many social and political implications, was fervently espoused by the church for several centuries and marked her as a living testimony of the crucified Christ. Like nearly all radical movements, the church eventually came to terms with the dominant culture and began to reflect the comfortable socially constructed values rather than the more costly realities of the kingdom of God.

In the fourth century, the Roman emperor Constantine united cross and sword at Milvan Bridge in his well-publicized “vision of the cross” with the words “In This Sign Conquer.” Who remembered his previous vision of Apollos that served his political and military purposes?
The church became militarized and politicized. To accommodate the mass conversion of Roman ruling parties and the general populace, Augustine of Hippo in the fifth century, formulated the just war doctrine still accepted today by Protestant and Roman Catholic followers.

[Augustine2004]

To accommodate the mass conversion of Roman ruling parties and the general populace, Augustine of Hippo in the fifth century, formulated the just war doctrine still accepted today by Protestant and Roman Catholic followers.Is not the just war doctrine so restrictive that war is virtually impossible? Why should we think what you asserted above?

[Obsidian]

Daniel, did you even read the link I posted? It certainly wasn't Constantine that militarized Christianity. Emperor Diocletian (prior to Constantine) even issued an order banning Christians from the military. What sense does it make to ban pacifists from the military?

But let me see if I understand your argument. You seem to be suggesting that we ignore all the Bible verses I have mentioned (condoning violence), and also condemn all the 4th Centuary (300s) Christians. Instead of trusting the scriptures or the vast weight of tradition, you instead believe that we should accept the position taken by a few deluded men who lived between 100-300 A.D..

Your quote from Ignatius merely tells us to endure persecution patiently. It's practicall a verbatim quote from the Bible. It really has no relevance to the debate about war or self-defense.

The quote from Athenagorus, meanwhile, condemns vengeance. Vengeance is a completely separate discussion from war and self-defense.

The quotes from Justin Martyr and Ireneaus are generic exhortations of peace. (Likewise, Jesus said, "Blessed are the peacemakers.") It's quite a stretch to say that these men condemned all violence merely because they quoted an OT verse which they believed had already been fulfilled.

But now let's look at your better examples:

Tertullian is actually a tragic case. He began a rather promising career as a Christian leader, but he eventually fell to the dark side, apostacising and becoming both an ascetic and a heretic. In his early years, he wrote to the Empire in his


We are but of yesterday, and we have filled every place among you— cities, islands, fortresses, towns, market-places, the very camp, tribes, companies, palace, senate, forum,— we have left nothing to you but the temples of your gods.


So we sojourn with you in the world, abjuring neither forum, nor shambles, nor bath, nor booth, nor workshop, nor inn, nor weekly market, nor any other places of commerce. We sail with you, and fight with you, and till the ground with you; and in like manner we unite with you in your traffickings— even in the various arts we make public property of our works for your benefit.

Eventually, he did change his mind, and he condemned being in the military. It seems that his main problem with it was the idolatry involved, although he did briefly mention the violent aspect. Along with military service, however, the fallen Tertullian also condemned serving in any public office, remarrying (even for widows), attending theater, etc. He went downhill over time, and the work you cited ("On the Crown") was written around 211 AD, five years after he joined the Montanist heresy. This was also about the same time that he split with the Church.

Hippolytus did (in one instance) condemn soldiers, although he never expounded on his reasoning -- whether it was because he opposed all violence, or because soldiers were persecuting Christians.

Origen did suggest that Christians should avoid the military, but it wasn't exactly for an ethical concern. Rather, he compared all Christians to priests (like Luther, and the Apostle Paul) and said that priests do not shed blood, but lend spiritual support to a just war:


Do not those who are priests at certain shrines, and those who attend on certain gods...keep their hands free from blood, that they may with hands unstained and free from human blood offer the appointed sacrifices to your gods; and even when war is upon you, you never enlist the priests in the army. If that, then, is a laudable custom, how much more so, that while others are engaged in battle, these too should engage as the priests and ministers of God, keeping their hands pure, and wrestling in prayers to God on behalf of those who are fighting in a righteous cause, and for the king who reigns righteously, that whatever is opposed to those who act righteously may be destroyed!

Of course, this wasn't Origen's only unusual belief. He was basically a heretic himself in certain respects, and as an ascetic, he even castrated himself.

So it looks like you've shown me [I]two "Church Fathers" taking your side -- Tertullian and Hippolytus -- one of which was a heretic. (And I'll maybe give you half-credit for Origen.) By contrast, the Bible, common sense, and most of Christian history all agree with me.

[Daniel Keeran]

Is not the just war doctrine so restrictive that war is virtually impossible? Why should we think what you asserted above?

Possibly because Augustines just war doctrine occurred AFTER the legalization/imperialization of Christianity and the forced baptism of the Roman army.

[Daniel Keeran]

Yes, it is easy to discount the early church fathers, but which one before Augustine was able to justify use of violence or force? Tertullian's mention that we "fight with you" is interesting and may refer to such occasions as the Thundering Legion in which Christians supposedly prayed, yet although this indicates Christians were in the military perhaps by conscription, it does not indicate a combat role.

I will list the references again and emphasize certain words that may be easy to overlook:

Ignatius of Antioch
“And let us IMITATE the Lord, ‘who, when he was reviled, reviled not again’; when he was crucified, He said, ‘Father, forgive them, they know not what they do.’ If anyone, the MORE HE IS INJURED, DISPLAYS THE MORE PATIENCE, blessed is he” (Ignatius of Antioch, 80-140 A.D., Epistle to the Ephesians). This is clearly pacifism at least in the case of persecution, and 1 Peter 2:20-22 advocates the same when a Christian slave is physically mistreated.

Tertullian and Athenagoras
Tertullian argues, “Shall the son of peace TAKE PART IN THE BATTLE when it does not become him even to SUE AT LAW?” (200 A.D., On the Crown) Also, ""Inquiry is made whether a believer is able to turn himself into MILITARY SERVICE... But how will a Christian wage war, indeed how will he serve even in peace without a sword, which the Lord has taken away? ...The Lord in disarming Peter, UNBELTED EVERY SOLDIER."
Whatever you want to say about Tertullian, he was a thorough pacifist and as I also believe, thought consistency demands not being a plaintiff in court. All of this for reasons other than idolatry as non-pacifists often argue.

Reflecting 2 Corinthians 11:20, Athenagoras shows the general understanding among Christians was against their taking plaintiff action: “We have learned not only not to return blow for blow, NOR TO GO TO LAW with those who plunder and rob us, but to those who smite us on one side of the face to OFFER THE OTHER SIDE also…” (177 A.D., A Plea for Christians).

Justin Martyr and Ireneaus
“We who were filled with war and mutual slaughter and every wickedness, have each through the whole earth changed our war-like weapons, OUR SWORDS INTO PLOUGHSHARES and our spears into implements of tillage, and we cultivate piety, righteousness, philanthropy, faith and hope…” (150 A.D., Dialogue with Trypho).

Irenaeus concurred with this and also related the prophetic fulfillment to Jesus’ instructions concerning non-resistance. “But if the law of liberty, that is, the word of God, preached by the apostles…. Caused such a change in the state of things, that these nations did FORM THE WAR-LANCES INTO PLOWSHARES… that is into instruments used for peaceful purposes… and when smitten offer ALSO THE OTHER CHEEK…” (183 A.D., Against Heresies).

Origen and Hippolytus
Origen bases his anti-war stand upon the church as being the literal fulfillment of Isaiah’s prophecy and as having a unique ministry of peace. “We NO LONGER TAKE UP 'SWORD against nation’ nor do we ‘learn war anymore’ having become children of peace for the sake of Jesus who is our leader” (225 A.D., Against Celsus).

Celsus was a pagan critic who commented, “If everyone should do the same as you, nothing would prevent the emperor from being left alone and deserted, and the affairs of the whole earth would come into the hands of the most lawless and wildest barbarians” (Against Celsus). Origen did not deny Celsus’ fear that if everyone became Christian the emperor would be left alone to rule, but Origen’s reply was that Christians “recognize in each city another native constitution, created by the word of God… Christians DECLINE PUBLIC OFFICE not in order to escape these duties but in order to keep themselves for a more divine and necessary service in the church of God for the salvation of men” (Against Celsus). Origen recognized the unique mission and calling of the kingdom of God and believed this precludes Christians participating in the ruling processes of worldly kingdoms.

For Hippolytus the application of non-violence is precise and includes prohibitions of a Christian’s becoming a soldier, ruler, or judge. “A soldier of the government must be told NOT TO EXECUTE MEN men; if he shall be ordered to do it, he shall not do it. He must be told not to take the military oath. If he will not agree, let him be rejected (from baptism). A military governor or a magistrate of a city who wears the purple, either let him desist or let him be rejected. If a catechumen or a baptized Christian wishes to become a soldier, let him be cast out. For he has despised God…” (220 A.D., Apostolic Tradition). Tertullian had earlier found similar occupations to be inconsistent with the Christian walk when he wrote, “And shall he apply the CHAIN AND THE PRISON AND THE TORTURE AND THE PUNISHMENT, who is not the avenger even of his own wrongs?” (On the Crown).

The issue for the early church fathers was not idolatry but the non-resistance teaching of Jesus. My point in this reply is not to argue that they were correct, although I think they were, but rather to say they were thorough and consistent in the application of non-resistance.

Again, what early church father before Augustine explicitly supported to use of violence for any reason whatsoever???

[Daniel Keeran]

Lactantius (early 4th century)

“It can never be lawful for a righteous man to go to war, whose warfare is in righteousness itself.”
“When God prohibits killing, he not only forbids us to commit brigandage, which is not allowed even by the public laws, but he warns us not to do even those things which are legal among men. And so it will not be lawful for a just man to serve as a soldier - for justice itself is his military service - nor to accuse anyone of a capital offense, because it makes no difference whether thou kill with a sword or with a word, since killing itself is forbidden. And so, in this commandment of God, no exception at all ought to be made to the rule that it is always wrong to kill a man, whom God has wished to be regarded as a sacrosanct creature.”

“When we suffer such ungodly things, we do not resist even in word. Rather, we leave vengeance to God.”

“The Christian does injury to no one. He does not desire the property of others. In fact, he does not even defend his own property if it is taken from him by violence. For he knows how to patiently bear an injury inflicted upon him.”

“When God forbids us to kill, he not only prohibits us from open violence… but he warns us against the commission of those things which are esteemed lawful among men. Thus it will be neither lawful for a just man to engage in warfare… Therefore, with regard to this precept of God, there ought to be no exception at all; but that it is always unlawful to put to death a man, whom God willed to be a sacred animal.”

“We do not resist those who injure us, for we must yield to them.”

“When men command us to act in opposition to the law of God, and in opposition to justice, we should not be deterred by any threats or punishments that come upon us. For we prefer the commandments of God to the commandments of man.”

“Someone will say here: ‘What therefore, or where, or of what sort is piety?’ Assuredly it is among those who are ignorant of war, who keep concord with all, who are friends even to their enemies, who love all men as their brothers, who know how to restrain their anger, and to soothe all madness of mind by quiet control.”

“God might have bestowed upon his people both riches and kingdoms, as he had given previously to the Jews, whose successors and posterity we are. However, he would have Christians live under the power and government of others, lest they should become corrupted by the happiness and prosperity, slide into luxury, and eventually despise the commandments of God. For this is what our ancestors did.”

“Why should the just man wage war, and mix himself up in other people’s passions – he in whose mind dwells perpetual peace with men?”

Clement of Alexandria (approx. A.D. 195)

“Christians are not allowed to use violence to correct the delinquencies of sins.”
“Man is in reality a pacific instrument.”

“The followers of peace use none of the implements of war.”

“We have made use of only one instrument, the peaceful word, with which we do honor to God.”

“We are being educated, not in war, but in peace.”

“We are the race given over to peace.”

“[Christians] are an army without weapons, without war, without bloodshed, without anger, without defilement.”

Tarachus (3rd century)

“I have led a military life, and am a Roman; and because I am a Christian I have abandoned my profession of a soldier.”
Marcellus (approx. A.D. 298)


“I threw down my arms for it was not seemly that a Christian man, who renders military service to the Lord Christ, should render it by earthly injuries.”
“It is not lawful for a Christian to bear arms for any earthly consideration.”

Irenaeus (approx. A.D. 180)

“Christians have changed their swords and their lances into instruments of peace, and they know not now how to fight.”
Justin Martyr (approx. A.D. 138)

“The devil is the author of all war.”
“We, who used to kill one another, do not make war on our enemies. We refuse to tell lies or deceive our inquisitors; we prefer to die acknowledging Christ.”

“We who had been filled with war and mutual slaughter and every wickedness, have each one - all the world over - changed the instruments of war, the swords into ploughs and the spears into farming instruments, and we cultivate piety, righteousness, love for men, faith, and the hope which is from the Father Himself through the Crucified One.”

“We who hated and slew one another, and because of differences in customs would not share a common hearth with those who were not of our tribe, now, after the appearance of Christ, have become sociable, and pray for our enemies, and try to persuade those who hate us unjustly, in order that they, living according to the good suggestions of Christ, may share our hope of obtaining the same reward from the God who is Master of all.”

“As to loving all men, he has taught as follows: ‘If ye love only those who love you, what new thing do ye do? For even fornicators do this. But I say to you: Pray for your enemies and love those who hate you and bless those who curse you and pray for those who act spitefully towards you.’ … And as to putting up with evil and being serviceable to all and without anger, this is what he says: ‘to him that smiteth thy cheek, offer the other cheek as well, and do not stop the man that takes away thy tunic or thy cloak. But whoever is angry is liable to the fire. Every one who impresses thee to go a mile, follow for two. Let your good works shine before men, that seeing them they may worship your Father in heaven.’”

The Martyrdom of Maximilian (A.D. 295)

“I cannot serve as a soldier; I cannot do evil; I am a Christian.” Dion threatened Maximilian, stating: "Get into the service, or it will cost you your life." With courage, Maximilian did not yield to the threat of death: “I shall not perish, but when I have forsaken this world, my soul shall live with Christ my Lord.” Later he refused the royal badge that had the sign of the emperor on it, saying, “I do not accept your mark, for I already have the sign of Christ, my God… I do not accept the mark of this age, and if you impose it on me, I shall break it, for it is worth nothing.”

Cyprian (approx. A.D. 250)

"[Christians] are not allowed to kill, but they must be ready to be put to death themselves... it is not permitted the guiltless to put even the guilty to death."
“God wished iron to be used for the cultivation of the earth, and therefore it should not be used to take human life.”

“The whole earth is drenched in adversaries’ blood, and if a murder is committed privately it is a crime, but if it happens with state authority, courage is the name for it. Impunity is claimed for the wicked deeds, not on the plea that they are guiltless, but because cruelty is perpetrated on a grand scale.”

“We should ever and a day reflect that we have renounced the world and are in the meantime living here as guests and strangers.”

Hermas (approx. A.D. 150)

“You know that you who are the servants of God dwell in a strange land. For your city is far away from this one. If, then, you know your city in which you are to dwell, why do you here provide lands, and make expensive preparations, and accumulate dwellings and useless buildings? He who makes such preparations for this city cannot return again to his own… Do you not understand that all these things belong to another, and are under the power of another? …Take note, therefore. As one living in a foreign land, make no further preparations for yourself except what is merely sufficient. And be ready to leave this city, when the master of this city comes to cast you out for disobeying his law.”

Arnobius (approx. A.D. 310)

"If all without exception . . . would lend an ear for a little to Christ’s salutary and peaceful rules… the whole world, having turned the use of steel into more peaceful occupations, would now be living in the most placid tranquility, and would unite in blessed harmony, maintaining inviolate the sanctity of treaties."
“Since we - so large a force of men - have received from Christ’s teachings and laws, that evil ought not to be repaid with evil, that it is better to endure a wrong than to inflict one, to shed one’s own blood rather than stain one’s hands and conscience with the blood of another, the ungrateful world has long been receiving a benefit from Christ, through whom the madness of savagery has been softened, and has begun to withhold its hostile hands from the blood of a kindred creature. But if absolutely all who understand that they are men by virtue, not of the form of their bodies, but of the power of their reason, were willing to lend an ear for a little while to his healthful and peaceful decrees, and would not, swollen with pride and arrogance, trust to their own senses rather than to his warnings, the whole world would long ago have turned the uses of iron to milder works and be living in the softest tranquility, and would have come together in healthy concord without breaking the sanctions of treaties.”

“Did Christ, claiming royal power for himself, occupy the whole world with fierce legions, and, of nations at peace from the beginning, destroy and remove some, and compel others to put their necks beneath his yoke and obey him?”

Ambrose

“The soldiers of Christ require neither arms nor spears of iron.”
“The servants of God do not rely for their protection on material defenses but on the divine Providence.”

[Augustine2004]

Possibly because Augustines just war doctrine occurred AFTER the legalization/imperialization of Christianity and the forced baptism of the Roman army.On the contrary, maybe Augustine wanted to 'limit the damage.'

[Augustine2004]

Notice, Mark 14 does not mention Jesus’ saying, “Put your sword in its place, for all who take the sword will perish by the sword,” after the servant’s ear was cut off. Matthew 26 does include that saying. Luke reports, “When those around Him saw what was going to happen, they asked Him, ‘Lord, shall we strike with the sword?’ And one of them struck the servant . . . ear. But Jesus answered and said, ‘Permit even this.’” John: “Then Simon Peter, having a sword, drew it and struck the . . . ear. . . Then Jesus said to Peter, “Put your sword back. Shall I not drink the cup which My Father has given Me?” Also, almost just before that, John wrote that the saying might be fulfilled which he spoke, “Of those whom You gave I have lost none.” I’m not certain what that means exactly, but it does seem like Jesus didn’t want his disciples to sacrifice themselves for nothing. It seems like he does approve of self defense or defending others in general, but not when it’s in vain or when it runs counter to Jesus’ mission.

[Obsidian]

@Daniel

I love how you ignore my points and continue to spout quotations out of context. You are incorrigible.

Restating the same thing with a few capitalized words isn't going to change my responses. But since you asked for explicit support of violence, I'll turn myself to Origen. As I already showed, he didn't condemn violence, but merely found it unfitting for Christians -- whom he compared to priests. Specifically, he used the words "fighting in a righteous cause" and "that whatever is opposed to those who act righteously may be destroyed."

He also compared men to animals in the following way:


But we ought to admire the divine nature, which extended even to irrational animals the capacity, as it were, of imitating rational beings, perhaps with a view of putting rational beings to shame....Considering the bees, they might place themselves in subjection to their Ruler, and take their respective parts in those constitutional duties which are of use in ensuring the safety of cities. Perhaps also the so-called wars among the bees convey instruction as to the manner in which wars, if ever there arise a necessity for them, should be waged in a just and orderly way among men.

Origen also praised the overthrow of tyrants unequivocally.


For just as it would be right for people to form associations secretly to kill a
tyrant who had seized control of their city, so too, since the devil, as Christians
call him, and falsehood reign as tyrants, Christians form associations against the
devil contrary to his laws, in order to save others whom they might be able to
persuade to abandon the law which is like that of the Scythians and of a tyrant

Furthermore, there are numerous examples of Christians serving in the military. Your distinction between "combat roles" and "non-combat roles" for Christians is completely artificial. I certainly don't know of evidence that such a distinction existed in that time. Are you seriously arguing that an entire "Thundering Legion" existed which resolved never to enter combat? Good grief, and I thought my taxpayer dollars were wasted! Not only is your suggestion of non-combat duty an anachronism, but it's also completely nonsensical (Unless you agree with Origen that violence is fitting for unbelievers but not the priests of God).

In the area of Syria, King Abgar IX converted to Christianity around 200 A.D. There's no evidence of him abdicating the throne, or disbanding his forces, etc.

Around 235 A.D., the Christian kingdom of Armenia defended itself against the Emperor Maximinus, who attacked them following their refusal to worship idols. (See Eusebius (http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/250109.htm), Chapter 8)

You make the mistake of assuming that everything is forbidden by law until God states otherwise. That isn't the way law codes normally work. For example, you are allowed to ride a bicycle along your sidewalk unless the government has stated otherwise. If the church men wanted to condemn military activity, they had the duty of SAYING SO. If they wanted to allow military service but forbid any actual actions arising from that service, they had the duty of SAYING SO.

What we've found is Lactanius, Tertullian, and Hippolytus condemned the military. I can't find copies of the writings of Cyprian, Maximilian, or Marcellus, so the context of their statements are unclear. For example, Cyprian may easily be referring to tyranny rather than war. And the latter two may have protested the idolatry or the use of violence to persecute Christians. Besides, these latter two aren't considered "church fathers," anyway.

We've already realized that even some of these writers recognized that Christians dwelt in the military ranks. So we have three Christian writers who clearly disagreed with violence, but untold numbers of Christians who served the empire as soldiers. And among those three writers, Tertullian was solidly heretical on various matters, particularly issues of asceticism.

Pacifism is a form of asceticism. Pacifism seems "spiritual" because of its harsh treatment of the body, but it really accomplishes nothing (See Colossians 2:23). What does it benefit God if you allow someone to murder you without resisting? All you accomplish is letting someone else damn their soul even further by heaping on additional punishment in hell. Because pacifism is asceticism and many Christians were embracing unbiblical asceticism throughout this period, that trend easily explains why some Christians abhored warfare.

St. Clement used a lot of peaceful rhetoric, but he never condemned the military. He even mentioned the military on multiple occasions, relating to Christian occupations, comparing it to other jobs like fishing or farming. The "instruments of war" quote is talking about musical instruments in a church service. You're not going to fool me by taking quotes out of context, so you can just cut that out right now.

Finally, I think it's pretty telling that to support your opinion, you're having to bring out these quotes from supposed "Church Fathers" (many inapplicable or taken out of context) -- rather than the plain words of the apostles as found in scripture. I've assumed it up until this point, but perhaps I should ask: Do you actually believe the Bible is God's infallible Word?

[Daniel Keeran]

Notice, Mark 14 does not mention Jesus’ saying, “Put your sword in its place, for all who take the sword will perish by the sword,” after the servant’s ear was cut off. Matthew 26 does include that saying. Luke reports, “When those around Him saw what was going to happen, they asked Him, ‘Lord, shall we strike with the sword?’ And one of them struck the servant . . . ear. But Jesus answered and said, ‘Permit even this.’” John: “Then Simon Peter, having a sword, drew it and struck the . . . ear. . . Then Jesus said to Peter, “Put your sword back. Shall I not drink the cup which My Father has given Me?” Also, almost just before that, John wrote that the saying might be fulfilled which he spoke, “Of those whom You gave I have lost none.” I’m not certain what that means exactly, but it does seem like Jesus didn’t want his disciples to sacrifice themselves for nothing. It seems like he does approve of self defense or defending others in general, but not when it’s in vain or when it runs counter to Jesus’ mission.

Jesus said "That is enough" or "Permit even this" meaning it is enough to fulfill messianic prophecy (Luke 22:36-38). What was Jesus observed response when the sword was used? "Put it away." So the sword was to be present but not used.

[Daniel Keeran]

@Daniel

Finally, I think it's pretty telling that to support your opinion, you're having to bring out these quotes from supposed "Church Fathers" (many inapplicable or taken out of context) -- rather than the plain words of the apostles as found in scripture. I've assumed it up until this point, but perhaps I should ask: Do you actually believe the Bible is God's infallible Word?

The Bible is most certainly God's word, and Christians are under the New Covenant in which numerous scripture support pacifism. Here is a Bible concordance for pacifists taken from "Radical Christianity: Peace and Justiuce in the New Testament."

1. Adversary/Adversity
Jesus urges us to resolve conflicts with our opponents before legal force is used against us. In the face of persecution, we should not be frightened by anything our adversaries can do to us because we are confident that God will save us in heaven when we die. Christians do not need to use physical force in defense. Young widows, as well as all Christians, should live in holiness so that enemies cannot make accusations of bad conduct. God will punish our enemies after this life, and so there is no need for us to seek their punishment. We should have such empathy for those who suffer persecution that we feel we are suffering with them.

Matt. 5:25 - Agree with your adversary quickly, while you are in the way with him; before the adversary delivers you to the judge, and the judge delivers you to the officer, and you be cast into prison.
Phil. 1:28 - And in nothing terrified by your adversaries: which is to them an evident token of perdition, but to you of salvation, and that of God.
I Tim. 5:14 - I will therefore that the younger women marry, bear children, guide the house, give none occasion to the adversary to speak reproachfully.
Heb. 10:27 - But a certain fearful looking for of judgment and fiery indignation, which shall devour the adversaries.
Heb. 13:3 - Remember those who… suffer adversity, as being yourselves also in the body.

2. Affliction
The scripture consistently describes Jesus’ followers as victims of violence rather than perpetrators of violence. The example of the apostles and of other Christians suffering affliction encourages us to endure affliction and to rejoice in affliction.

Matt. 24:9 – the shall they deliver you up to be afflicted
Mk. 4:17 – when affliction or persecution arises for the word's sake
Acts 20:23 – the Holy Spirit witnesses in every city, saying that bonds and afflictions await me
II Cor. 1:6 – And whether we be afflicted, it is for your consolation and salvation, which is effectual in the enduring of the same sufferings which we also suffer
II Cor. 6:4 – But in all things approving ourselves as the ministers of God, in much patience, in afflictions
II Cor. 8:2 – How that in a great trial of affliction the abundance of their joy
I Thess. 1:6 – And you became followers of us, and of the Lord, having received the word in much affliction, with joy
I Thess. 3:3 – That no man should be moved by these afflictions: for yourselves know that we are appointed to this
I Thess. 3:7 – Therefore, brethren, we were comforted over you in all our affliction and distress by your faith
II Tim. 1:8 – be a partaker of the afflictions of the gospel
II Tim. 3:11 – Persecutions, afflictions, which came unto me at Antioch, at Iconium, at Lystra
II Tim. 4:5 – endure afflictions
Heb. 10:32 – you endured a great fight of afflictions
Heb. 10:33 - you were made a gazingstock both by reproaches and afflictions; and partly, while you became companions of them that were so used
James 5:10 – Take, my brethren, the prophets, who have spoken in the name of the Lord, for an example of suffering affliction, and of patience.
I Pet. 5:9 - Whom resist firmly in the faith, knowing that the same afflictions are accomplished in your brethren that are in the world.

3. Armour
The scriptures consistently describe the Christian armour, weaponry, and struggle in spiritual terms rather than physical terms. The Christian struggle is “not against flesh and blood.”

Rom. 13:12 - The night is almost gone, the day is at hand: let us therefore throw off the works of darkness, and let us put on the armour of light.
II Cor. 6:7 - By the word of truth, by the power of God, by the armour of righteousness on the right hand and on the left
Eph. 6:11-17 - Put on the whole armour of God, that you may be able to stand against the wiles of the devil. For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places. For this reason, take for yourselves the whole armour of God, that you may be able to withstand in the evil day, and having done all, to stand. Stand therefore, having your waist covered with truth, and having on the breastplate of righteousness; and your feet with shoes made of the gospel of peace. Above all, take the shield of faith, whereby you shall be able to quench all the fiery darts of the wicked. And take the helmet of salvation, and the sword of the Spirit, which is the word of God
I Thess. 5:8 - But let us, who are of the day, be sober, putting on the breastplate of faith and love; and for a helmet, the hope of salvation.

4. Beat
The early Christians were only victims of beating and never engaged in or condoned the beating of others.

Mark 13:9 - But be aware of this, for they shall deliver you up to councils; and in the synagogues you shall be beaten
Acts 5:40 - And to him they agreed: and when they had called the apostles, and beaten them, they commanded that they should not speak in the name of Jesus, and let them go.
Acts 16:22 - And the multitude rose up together against them: and the magistrates tore their clothes, and commanded to beat them.
Acts 16:37 - But Paul said to them, They have beaten us openly uncondemned, being Romans, and have cast us into prison
Acts 21:32 - Who immediately took soldiers and centurions, and ran down to them: and when they saw the chief captain and the soldiers, they stopped beating Paul.
Acts 22:19 - And I said, Lord, they know that I imprisoned and beat in every synagogue those who believed on you
II Cor. 11:25 – Three times was I beaten with rods, once was I stoned

5. Bless
Disciples are called to bless their enemies whenever attacked verbally or physically and are blessed and encouraged to rejoice when they suffer in this way. The reward for those so treated is a heavenly blessing.

Matt. 5:3-11 - Blessed are the meek, merciful, peacemakers, the persecuted for righteousness’ sake.
Matt. 5:44 - Bless them that curse you
Lk. 6:22 - Blessed are you, when men shall hate you, … separate you, … reproach you, and cast out your name as evil, for the Son of man's sake.
Lk. 6:28 - Bless them that curse you
Rom. 12:14 - Bless them which persecute you: bless, and curse not.
I Cor. 4:12 - being reviled, we bless
I Pet. 3:9 - Not rendering evil for evil, or railing for railing: but on the contrary, blessing; knowing that you are called to this, that you should inherit a blessing.

6. Bonds/Bound
God’s people were arrested or placed in bonds but never sought the arrest of others or for others to be placed in bonds or in prison.

Acts 9:2 – if he found any of this Way, whether they were men or women, he might bring them bound to Jerusalem
Acts 21:13 - Then Paul answered, What do you mean to weep and to break my heart? For I am ready not to be bound only, but also to die at Jerusalem for the name of the Lord Jesus.
Acts 21:33 - Then the chief captain came near, and took him, and commanded him to be bound with two chains; and demanded whom he was, and what he had done.
Acts 22:4 - And I persecuted this way unto the death, binding and delivering into prisons both men and women.
II Cor. 11:20 – you allow it, if anyone puts bonds on you
Eph. 6:20 – for which I am an ambassador in bonds
II Tim. 2:9 – wherein I suffer trouble, as a criminal, even unto bonds
Heb. 13:3 – remember them that are in bonds, as bound with them

7. Chasten
Early Christians are described as victims of violent chastening and encouraged to accept it as discipline resulting in peaceable fruits of righteousness. For their part, Christians must seek peace with everyone.

II Cor. 6:9 - As unknown, and yet well known; as dying, and, behold, we live; as chastened, and not killed
Heb. 12:3-14 - Consider him who endured from sinners such hostility against himself, so that you may not grow weary or fainthearted. In your struggle against sin you have not yet resisted to the point of shedding your blood. And have you forgotten the exhortation which addresses you as sons? --"My son, do not regard lightly the discipline of the Lord, nor lose courage when you are chastened by him. For the Lord disciplines him whom he loves, and chastises every son whom he receives." It is for discipline that you have to endure. God is treating you as sons; for what son is there whom his father does not discipline? If you are left without discipline, in which all have participated, then you are illegitimate children and not sons. Besides this, we have had earthly fathers to discipline us and we respected them. Shall we not much more be subject to the Father of spirits and live? For they disciplined us for a short time at their pleasure, but he disciplines us for our good, that we may share his holiness. For the moment all discipline seems painful rather than pleasant; later it yields the peaceful fruit of righteousness to those who have been trained by it. Strive for peace with all men, and for the holiness without which no one will see the Lord.

8. Compassion
Compassion and empathy for others are characteristic of the way of God’s chosen ones.

Col. 3:12 – Put on then, as God's chosen ones, holy and beloved, compassion
I Pet. 3:8 – having compassion one for another; be pitiful

9. Court of Law
Followers of Jesus are described as victims of legal action and are discouraged from going to court against anyone. It is better to be treated unjustly than to go to court.

Matt. 5:40 – if any one sues you in a court of law, and takes away your coat, let him have your shirt as well
I Cor. 6:1-10 – now therefore there is utterly a fault among you, because you go to a court of law against each other. Why don’t you rather allow yourselves to be treated unjustly?
James 2:6 – do not rich people oppress you, and bring you before courts of law?

10. Death
Christians did not fear death, were persecuted to death, and never sought the death of others. In their manner of dying, God’s people demonstrate the way of life resulting from the message about Jesus.

Acts 21:13 – I am ready not only to be bound, but also to die at Jerusalem for the name of the Lord
Acts 22:4 – I persecuted this Way unto the death
I Cor. 15:54-56 – Death is swallowed up in victory. O death, where is your sting? O grave, where is your victory?
II Cor. 4:11 – we who are alive are always delivered to death for Jesus’ sake, that the life also of Jesus might be clearly seen in our perishable body
Phil. 1:21 – for to me to live is Christ and to die is gain

11. Destroy
Disciples need not fear those who inflict physical death but only eternal consequences.

Matt. 10:28 – fear not those who kill the body, but are not able to kill the soul, but rather fear him who is able to destroy both body and soul in hell

12. Do Good
Doing good to one’s enemies is the only option and is how one becomes a child of God. Doing evil or harm to others is not the way of the disciple, for doing good must be the response to physical attack or verbal abuse from others.

Lk. 6:27,28 – do good to them that hate you
Lk. 6:33 – if you do good to them that do good to you, what credit is that to you?
Lk. 6:35 - do good (to enemies) …and you will be sons of the Most High; for he is kind to the ungrateful and the selfish.
Gal. 5:22 - the fruit of the Spirit is …goodness
Gal. 6:10 – do good unto all men
Eph. 6:8 – whatever good thing anyone does, the same he will receive from the Lord
Rom. 12:21 – overcome evil with good
Heb. 13:16 – forget not to do good
III Jn.11 – he who does good is of God

13. Endurance
The patient endurance of unjust suffering is the hallmark of Christian conduct and the only response in the face of persecution or any injustice.

II Tim. 2:3 – You therefore endure hardness as a good soldier of Jesus Christ
II Tim. 3:11 – what persecutions I endured
II Thess. 1:4 – we glory in you for your patience in all your persecutions and tribulations that you endure
Heb. 10:32 – you endured a great fight of afflictions
Heb. 12:3,7 – consider Him who endured…. If you endure discipline, God is treating you as his children
James 5:11 – behold, we count them happy who endure
I Peter 2:19 – for this is commendable, if a person for conscience toward God endures pain, suffering wrongfully

14. Enemy
Enemies must be addressed only with love and goodness as the way to imitate God who loved us when we were his enemies and who blesses everyone.

Matt. 5:44 - But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you
Luke 6:27 - But I say unto you which hear, Love your enemies, do good to them which hate you
Luke 6:35 - But love your enemies, and do good, and lend, hoping for nothing again; and your reward shall be great, and you shall be the children of the Highest: for he is kind to the unthankful and to the evil
Rom. 5:10 - For if, when we were enemies, we were reconciled to God by the death of his Son, much more, being reconciled, we shall be saved by his life
Rom. 12:20 - Therefore if your enemy is hungry, feed him; if he is thirsty, give him drink: for in so doing you shall heap coals of fire on his head.

15. Evil
Christians suffer evil but are admonished repeatedly to never pay back evil with evil but only respond with doing good to enemies.

Acts 9:13 – how much evil he has done to your saints at Jerusalem
Rom. 3:8 – Shall we do evil that good may come?
Rom. 12:21 – Be not overcome by evil, but overcome evil with good.
Rom. 12:17 – Do not pay back anyone evil for evil.
I Thess. 5:15 – see that no one renders evil for evil toward anyone… but always do good to everyone
I Peter 3:9 – not rendering evil for evil

16. Fight
Citizens of the divine kingdom do not engage in physical fighting.

John 18:36 - Jesus answered, My kingdom is not of this world: if my kingdom were of this world, then would my servants fight, that I should not be delivered to the Jews: but now is my kingdom not from here.

17. Force
Jesus, his followers, and his kingdom are victims of others who use physical force.

Matt. 5:41 – and whoever shall force you to go one mile, go with him two
Matt. 11:12 – the kingdom of heaven suffers violence, and the violent take it by force
John 6:15 – when Jesus therefore understood that they wanted to come and take him by force, to make him a king, he left
Acts 23:10 – the chief captain… commanded the soldiers to go down, and to take him from them by force

18. Forgiveness
A quarrel or offense should always be approached with a readiness to forgive because God forgave us in Christ’s death. Our being forgiven by God depends upon our forgiving others.

Matt. 6:14 - For if you forgive people their trespasses, your heavenly Father will also forgive you.
Matt. 6:15 - But if you forgive not men their trespasses, neither will your Father forgive your trespasses.
Luke 6:37 - Judge not, and you shall not be judged: condemn not, and you shall not be condemned: forgive, and you shall be forgiven
Eph. 4:32 - And be kind one to another, tenderhearted, forgiving one another, even as God for Christ's sake has forgiven you.
Col. 3:13 - Forbearing one another, and forgiving one another, if any man have a quarrel against any: even as Christ forgave you, so also do you.

19. Gentleness
Gentleness is the opposite of physical fighting, is a sign of being led by the Spirit, is a result of divine wisdom, and must be shown to everyone.

Gal. 5:22 – the fruit of the Spirit is… gentleness
II Tim.2:24 – be gentle to all men
Titus 3:2 – to speak evil of no man, to be no brawlers, but gentle
James 3:17 - the wisdom that is from above is first pure, then peaceable, gentle, and easy to be intreated, full of mercy

20. Harmless/Harm
Doing good can prevent harm done to you, and God’s people must be harmless, as their Lord, to set themselves apart from the world.

Matt. 10:16 – be therefore… harmless as doves
Philippians 2:15 - That you may be blameless and harmless, the sons of God, without rebuke, in the midst of a crooked and perverse nation, among whom you shine as lights in the world
Heb. 7:26 - For such an high priest became us, who is holy, harmless, undefiled, separate from sinners, and made higher than the heavens
1 Peter 3:13 - And who is he that will harm you, if you are followers of that which is good?

21. Hate
Christians may be hated but they must never hate others and must do good to those who hate them. Being hated for Jesus, is a blessed state because Jesus was also hated. One cannot hate another person and also love God.

Matt. 5:43 - You have heard that it was said, You shall love your neighbour, and hate your enemy.
Matt. 5:44 - But I say to you, Love your enemies, bless those who curse you, do good to those hate you, and pray for those who despitefully use you, and persecute you
Matt. 10:22 - And you shall be hated by all men for my name's sake: but he who endures to the end shall be saved.
Matt. 24:9 - Then shall they deliver you up to be afflicted, and shall kill you: and you shall be hated by all nations for my name's sake.
Luke 1:71 - That we should be saved from our enemies, and from the hand of all that hate us.
Luke 6:22 - Blessed are you, when men shall hate you, and when they shall separate you from their company, and shall reproach you, and cast out your name as evil, for the Son of man's sake.
Luke 6:27 - But I say to you who hear, Love your enemies, do good to those who hate you.
Luke 21:17 - And you shall be hated by all men for my name's sake.
John 15:18 - If the world hate you, you know that it hated me before it hated you.
John 15:19 - If you were of the world, the world would love its own: but because you are not of the world, but I have chosen you out of the world, therefore the world hates you.
John 17:14 - I have given them your word; and the world has hated them, because they are not of the world, even as I am not of the world.
I John 2:9 - He who said he is in the light, and hates his brother, is in darkness even until now.
I John 2:11 - But he who hates his brother is in darkness, and walks in darkness, and knows not where he goes, because darkness has blinded his eyes.
I John 3:13 – Do not be surprised, my brethren, if the world hates you.
I John 3:15 - Whoever hates his brother is a murderer: and you know that no murderer has eternal life abiding in him.
I John 4:20 - If a man says, I love God, and hates his brother, he is a liar: for he who loves not his brother whom he has seen, how can he love God whom he has not seen?

[Daniel Keeran]

22. Honor
The implications are far-reaching, for if there are no exceptions, this means Christians must honor their enemies, drunks, and those who do not honor themselves.

Rom. 12:10 – in honor preferring one another
I Pet. 2:17 – honor all men

23. Humility
Humility is an attitude that God approves most highly. This means to treat others with such dignity and respect that the person you are with becomes the most valued and important person.

Matt. 23:12 – he who humbles himself shall be exalted
Lk. 14:11 – he who humbles himself shall be exalted
Acts 20:19 – serving the Lord with all humility of mind
Col.3:12 – put on humility
James 4:6 – God resists the proud, but gives grace unto the humble
I Peter 5:5 – be clothed with humility: for God resists the proud, and gives grace to the humble
24. Kill
While the law of Moses prohibits murder, still Christians were killed as was Jesus. Those who kill us should not be feared. James says although the saints of God are killed, they do not rise up or engage in violent resistance. In scripture, Christians are always victims of killing but never kill others in self-defense or otherwise.

Matt. 5:21 - You have heard that it was said by them of old time, You shall not kill; and whosoever shall kill shall be in danger of the judgment
Matt. 10:28 - And fear not those who kill the body, but are not able to kill the soul
Matt. 16:21 - From that time on began Jesus to show to his disciples, how that he must go unto Jerusalem, and suffer many things by the elders and chief priests and scribes, and be killed
Matt. 23:34 - I send to you prophets, and wise men, and scribes: and some of them you shall kill and crucify; and some of them shall you scourge in your synagogues, and persecute them from city to city
Matt. 24:9 - Then shall they deliver you up to be afflicted, and shall kill you: and you shall be hated by all nations for my name's sake.
Luke 12:4 - And I say to you my friends, Be not afraid of those who kill the body, and after that have no more that they can do.
Acts 9:23 - And after many days had passed, the Jews took counsel to kill him:
Acts 9:24 - But their lying in wait was known by Saul. And they watched the gates day and night to kill him.
Acts 12:2 - And he killed James the brother of John with the sword.
Acts 23:12 - And when it was day, certain of the Jews banded together, and bound themselves under a curse, saying that they would neither eat nor drink till they had killed Paul.
Acts 26:21 - For these reasons the Jews caught me in the temple, and went about to kill me.
Rom. 8:36 - As it is written, For your sake we are killed all the day long; we are accounted as sheep for the slaughter.
James 5:6 - You have condemned and killed the just; and he does not resist you.

25. Kindness
The grace of God is undeserved kindness toward us. When we show kindness to violent people, we are imitating God, and so it is a sign of our calling as servants of God and a result of the Spirit in their lives.

Luke 6:35 – love your enemies, do good, and lend hoping for nothing again… and you shall be sons of the Most High: for he is kind to the unthankful and to the evil
I Cor. 13:4 – love is kind
II Cor. 6:6 – approving ourselves as ministers of God by kindness
Gal. 5:22 – the fruit of the Spirit is… kindness
Eph. 4:32 – and be kind one to another
Col. 3:12 – put on kindness
II Peter 1:7 – add to brotherly kindness, love

26. Longsuffering
God’s people must put on longsuffering, sometimes translated as patience or perseverance, and it is to be exercised in the face of hostile opposition. It is a sign one is led by the Spirit and that one is approved as a servant of God. Notice that joyfulness should accompany this virtue.

II Cor. 6:6 – approving ourselves as ministers of God by longsuffering
Gal. 5:22 – the fruit of the Spirit is… longsuffering
Eph. 4:2 – walk worthy of the vocation to which you were called, with longsuffering
Col. 1:11 – strengthened with all might unto longsuffering with joyfulness
Col. 3:12 – put on as God’s elect, longsuffering
II Tim. 3:10 – you have fully known my longsuffering

27. Love
The kind of love in the following passages is undeserved or unconditional kindness. This is the love God had for the world in giving Jesus to be a sacrifice for sin. This love prefers to die rather than to kill because it is sacrificial in imitation of the love of Jesus in taking on the sins of the world in his suffering and death.

Matt. 5:44,46 – love your enemies….no reward in loving those who love you
Matt. 19:19; 22:39 – love your neighbor as yourself
Lk. 6:27-32 – love, bless, do good, pray for enemies
Jn. 13:34 – love one another
Jn. 15:12,17 – love one another
Jn. 15:13 – greater love has no man than to lay down his life
Rom. 12:9 – let love be genuine
Rom. 13:8 – owe no one anything but to love
Rom. 13:10 - Love does no wrong to a neighbor; therefore love is the fulfilling of the law.
I Cor. 13:4-7 – love is patient and kind,… is not irritable or resentful… bears all things,… endures all things
I Cor. 16:14 – let all things be done in love
Gal. 5:13 – by love serve one another
Gal. 5:22 – love is fruit of the Spirit
Eph. 4:2 – bearing with one another in love
Eph. 5:2 – walk in love
I Pet. 2:17 – love the brotherhood
I Jn. 2:15 – love not things in the world
I Jn. 3:16,17 – love is to give to the needs of others and to lay down one’s life
I Jn. 4:10 – love others because God loves them

28. Lowliness
The nature of Jesus is to be lowly in heart, and this is what he wants his people to be also. Lowliness does not allow physical aggression against anyone because it is linked to meekness, forbearance, patience, and love.

Matt. 11:29 - Take my yoke upon you, and learn of me, for I am meek and lowly in heart
Eph. 4:2 - With all lowliness and meekness, with longsuffering, forbearing one another in love
Phil. 2:3 – in lowliness of mind let each esteem others better than themselves

29. Meekness
The definition of meekness is gentleness in the face of wrath, patient and unresentful under injury and reproach, and this understanding of meek complements the other values of mercifulness and peacemaking found among the beatitudes (Mat. 5: 5,7,9). Meekness is a sign of the indwelling Spirit and must be shown to all people.

Matt. 5:5 – blessed are the meek
Gal. 5:23 – the fruit of the Spirit is… meekness
Col. 3:12 – put on meekness
I Tim. 6:11 – follow after meekness
Titus 3:2 – show all meekness to all men
I Peter 3:15 – be ready to give an answer… with meekness

30. Mercy
God is merciful to enemies, and in imitation of God his people must shown mercy to their enemies. Full mercy toward enemies is the wisdom that comes only from God.

Matt. 5:7 – blessed are the merciful
Lk. 6:36 – be therefore merciful, as your Father also is merciful
James 2:13 – he shall have judgment without mercy, who has shown no mercy
James 3:17 – the wisdom that is from above is… full of mercy

31. Overcome
Regardless of the kind of tribulation, Christians can remain happy in knowing that Jesus has overcome. To overcome or defeat evil, one should use acts of goodness toward one’s enemy. Spiritual weapons, especially our faith, are strong enough to overcome any evil the world may do to us.

John 16:33 - I have said this to you, that in me you may have peace. In the world you have tribulation; but be of good cheer, I have overcome the world.
Rom. 12:21 - Do not be overcome by evil, but overcome evil with good.
I John 4:4 - Little children, you are of God, and have overcome them; for he who is in you is greater than he who is in the world.
I John 5:4 - For whatever is born of God overcomes the world; and this is the victory that overcomes the world, our faith.

32. Patience
Servants of God are approved by their patience as a glorious response to be exercised toward all men and in all kinds of trouble including unjust physical suffering inflicted by enemies and not only in persecution.

Rom. 5:3,4 – tribulation produces patience (endurance)
II Cor. 6:4 – approving ourselves as ministers of God in much patience
I Tim. 6:11 – O man of God, follow after patience
I Thess. 5:14 - Now we exhort you, brethren… be patient toward all men.
II Tim. 2:24 – the servant of the Lord must be patient
II Thess. 1:4 – we glory in you for your patience in all your persecutions and tribulations that you endure
James 5:7,8,10 – take, my brethren, the prophets for an example of suffering affliction, and of patience. Behold we count them happy which endure
I Pet. 2:20 – if, when you do right and suffer for it, you take it patiently, you have God’s approval. For even hereunto were you called…


33. Peace
Children of God are peacemakers who bring a gospel of peace given by the Prince of Peace. This peace is not only in the message of forgiveness but is also demonstrated in the conduct of Christians toward their enemies. This peaceful conduct is linked to the character of gentleness, mercy, and being open to reason.
Following peace with everyone is a condition of eternal salvation.

Matt. 5:9 - Blessed are the peacemakers: for they shall be called the children of God.
Mark 9:50 - Salt is good: but if the salt has lost its saltiness, how then will you season it? Have salt in yourselves, and have peace one with another.
Luke 1:79 - To give light to them that sit in darkness and in the shadow of death, to guide our feet into the way of peace.
Luke 2:14 - Glory to God in the highest, and on earth peace, good will toward men.
John 14:27 - Peace I leave with you, my peace I give unto you: not as the world gives, give I unto you. Let not your heart be troubled, neither let it be afraid.
Acts 10:36 - The word which God sent unto the children of Israel, preaching peace by Jesus Christ
Rom. 3:17 - And the way of peace have they not known
Rom. 10:15 - And how shall they preach, except they be sent? as it is written, How beautiful are the feet of them that preach the gospel of peace, and bring glad tidings of good things!
Rom. 12:18 - If it be possible, as much as lies in you, live peaceably with all men.
Rom. 14:19 - Let us therefore follow after the things which make for peace, and things wherewith one may edify another.
Rom. 15:33 - Now the God of peace be with you all.
II Cor. 13:11 - Finally, brethren, farewell. Be perfect, be of good comfort, be of one mind, live in peace; and the God of love and peace shall be with you.
Gal. 5:22 - But the fruit of the Spirit is… peace
Eph. 6:15 - And your feet shod with the preparation of the gospel of peace
I Thess. 5:13 - And be at peace among yourselves.
II Thess. 3:16 - Now the Lord of peace himself give you peace always by all means.
I Tim. 2:2 - For kings, and for all that are in authority; that we may lead a quiet and peaceable life in all godliness and honesty.
Heb. 7:2 - first being by interpretation King of righteousness, and after that also King of Salem, which is, King of peace
Heb. 12:14 - Follow peace with all men, and holiness, without which no man shall see the Lord.
James 3:17 - But the wisdom from above is first pure, then peaceable, gentle, open to reason, full of mercy
James 3:18 - And the harvest of righteousness is sown in peace by those who make peace.
I Peter 3:11 - let him turn away from evil and do right; let him seek peace and pursue it.

34. Persecution
Persecution is any unjust attack both verbal and physical. Christians may flee but may not use physical means to defend themselves. They are always in scripture the victims of persecution and not perpetrators, as it is written, he who was born after the flesh persecuted him who was born after the Spirit. Christians should take pleasure in suffering persecution.

Matt. 5:10 - Blessed are they who are persecuted for righteousness' sake: for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.
Matt. 5:11 - Blessed are ye, when men shall revile you, and persecute you
Matt. 5:12 - so persecuted they the prophets who were before you.
Matt. 5:44 - pray for those who despitefully use you, and persecute you
Matt. 10:23 - But when they persecute you in this city, flee into another
Matt. 13:21 - when tribulation or persecution arises because of the word, eventually he is offended.
Matt. 23:34 - I send unto you prophets, and wise men, and scribes: and some of them you shall kill and crucify; and some of them shall you scourge in your synagogues, and persecute them from city to city.
Luke 21:12 - But before all these, they shall lay their hands on you, and persecute you
John 15:20 - Remember the word that I said to you, The servant is not greater than his master. If they have persecuted me, they will also persecute you
Acts 8:1 - at that time there was a great persecution against the church that was at Jerusalem
Acts 13:50 - raised persecution against Paul and Barnabas, and expelled them out of their coasts.
Acts 22:4 - And I persecuted this way unto the death, binding and delivering into prisons both men and women.
Rom. 8:35 - Who shall separate us from the love of Christ? shall … persecution… or sword?
Rom. 12:14 - Bless those who persecute you: bless, and curse not.
I Cor. 4:12 - being persecuted, we suffer it.
I Cor. 15:9 - I persecuted the church of God.
II Cor. 4:9 - Persecuted, but not forsaken; cast down, but not destroyed.
II Cor. 12:10 - Therefore I take pleasure … in reproaches… in persecutions
Gal. 1:13 - in the Jews' religion, how that beyond measure I persecuted the church of God, and wasted it.
Gal. 4:29 - But as then, he who was born after the flesh persecuted him who was born after the Spirit, even so it is now.
Gal. 6:12 - suffer persecution for the cross of Christ.
Phil. 3:6 - Concerning zeal, persecuting the church
I Thess. 2:15 - Who both killed the Lord Jesus, and their own prophets, and have persecuted us
II Thess. 1:4 - So that we ourselves glory in you in the churches of God for your patience and faith in all your persecutions and tribulations that you endure.
I Tim. 1:13 - Who was before a blasphemer, and a persecutor, and injurious: but I obtained mercy, because I did it ignorantly in unbelief.
II Tim. 3:11 - Persecutions, afflictions, that came to me at Antioch, at Iconium, at Lystra; what persecutions I endured
II Tim. 3:12 - all that will live godly in Christ Jesus shall suffer persecution.
Rev. 12:13 - And when the dragon saw that he was cast unto the earth, he persecuted the woman which brought forth the man child.

35. Plunder
Christians were victims of plundering and did not retaliate but suffered joyfully.

Heb. 10:34 – you joyfully accepted the plundering of your property

36. Recompense/Repay/Pay back
Only God can punish or pay back evil for evil done to Christians who can never use physical force or the threat of physical force to right the wrongs done to them.

Rom. 12:17 – recompense to no one evil for evil
II Thess. 1:6 – it is a righteous thing with God to recompense tribulation to them that trouble you
Heb. 10:30 – vengeance belongs to me, I will recompense, says the Lord

37. Reproach
The definition of reproach is verbal abuse that causes shame or disgrace such as cursing, demeaning sarcasm and name-calling. Jesus and his followers are victims of this kind of attack, and can cope by taking pleasure when reproached for doing what is right. The proper response is to love, bless, and pray for the abuser.

Luke 6:22 - Blessed are you, when men shall hate you… and shall reproach you, and cast out your name as evil, for the Son of man's sake.
Rom. 15:3 - For even Christ pleased not himself; but, as it is written, The reproaches of those who reproached you fell on me.
II Cor. 12:10 - Therefore I take pleasure in infirmities, in reproaches… for Christ's sake: for when I am weak, then am I strong.
I Tim. 4:10 - For therefore we both labour and suffer reproach, because we trust in the living God
Heb. 10:33 - Partly, while you were made a spectacle both by reproaches and afflictions; and partly, while you became companions of them that were so used.
Heb. 11:26 - Esteeming the reproach of Christ greater riches than the treasures in Egypt
Heb. 13:13 - Let us go forth therefore unto him without the camp, bearing his reproach.
I Peter 4:14 - If you are reproached for the name of Christ, happy are you

38. Resist
The term resist means to remain firm against or oppose. In the face of a physical insult such as a slap, Christians are taught to accept it without retaliation. But the whole of scripture shows this non-resistance may lead to the death of the one who does God’s will. The Hebrew passage speaks of Christians refusing to give in to sin leading to their own death, not the death of their enemy.

Matt. 5:39 - But I say to you, That you resist not the evil one: but whoever shall strike you on your cheek, turn to him the other also.
Heb. 12:4 - You have not yet resisted until shedding your own blood, striving against sin.
James 5:6 - You have condemned and killed the just; and he does not resist you.

39. Revile
To revile means to assail with abusive language. The unrepentant reviler cannot be saved. Christians bless rather than revile in return and are happy when reviled for doing right.

Matt. 5:11 - Blessed are you, when men shall revile you… for my sake.
Matt. 27:39 - And they who passed by reviled him, wagging their heads,
Mark 15:32 - And they that were crucified with him reviled him.
I Cor. 4:12 - being reviled, we bless
I Cor. 6:10 - nor revilers… shall inherit the kingdom of God.
I Peter 2:23 - Who, when he was reviled, reviled not again

40. Smite
Christians should turn the other cheek when struck in the face. To strike back at the enemy is not an option for the Christian.

Matt. 5:39 - But I say to you, That you resist not evil: but whoever shall smite you on your right cheek, turn to him the other also.
Luke 22:63 - And the men that held Jesus mocked him, and smote him.
John 18:23 - Jesus answered him, If I have spoken evil, bear witness of the evil: but if well, why do you smite me?
Acts 23:2 - And the high priest Ananias commanded those who stood by him to smite him on the mouth.
II Cor. 11:20 - For you bear it if a man… strikes you in the face.

41. Stoned
The law of Moses called for those violators to be stoned to death. In contrast, the law of Christ called for Christians to do good to their enemies and not to seek their punishment but to allow God to avenge any wrong. Christians were only victims of stoning and were never perpetrators.

Acts 7:58 - And cast him out of the city, and stoned him: and the witnesses laid down their clothes at a young man's feet, whose name was Saul.
Acts 7:59 - And they stoned Stephen, calling upon God, and saying, Lord Jesus, receive my spirit.
Acts 14:5 - And when there was an assault made both by the Gentiles, and also by the Jews with their rulers, to use them despitefully, and to stone them,
Acts 14:19 - And there came there certain Jews from Antioch and Iconium, who persuaded the people, and having stoned Paul, drew him out of the city, supposing he had been dead.
II Cor. 11:25 – Three times was I beaten with rods, once was I stoned
Heb. 11:37 - They were stoned, they were sawn apart, were tempted, were slain with the sword

42. Strike
Notice that the quality of a bishop is not only to be no striker but also not easily angered. Peter was told to put away his sword rather than to employ it in striking others.

Matt. 26:51,52 - And, behold, one of them who was with Jesus stretched out his hand, and drew his sword, and struck a servant of the high priest's, and smote off his ear. Then said Jesus to him, Put up again your sword into its place: for all those who take the sword shall perish with the sword.
Mark 14:65 - And some began to spit on him, and to cover his face, and to beat him…and the servants did strike him with the palms of their hands.
I Tim. 3:3 - Not given to wine, no striker…but patient, not a brawler
Titus 1:7 - For a bishop must be … not soon angry… no striker

[Daniel Keeran]

43. Stripes
Jesus and his followers received stripes or flogging but never inflicted it on others.

Acts 16:23 - And when they had laid many stripes upon them, they cast them into prison, charging the jailor to keep them safely
II Cor. 6:5 - In stripes, in imprisonments, in tumults, in labours, in watchings, in fastings
II Cor. 11:23 - Are they ministers of Christ? (I speak as a fool) I am more; in labours more abundant, in stripes above measure, in prisons more frequent, in deaths oft.
II Cor. 11:24 - By the Jews five times received I forty stripes less one.
II Peter 2:24 - Who himself bore our sins in his own body on the tree, that we, being dead to sins, should live unto righteousness: by whose stripes you were healed.

44. Suffering
Suffering for doing what is right is the joyful state of Christians. Knowing about the suffering of other Christians and of Jesus, gives us courage to face the same. Suffering for doing what is right, must be taken patiently without hatred or resentment. We are called to follow the example of Jesus in his patient way of suffering injustice. Those of the kingdom of heaven are victims of violence but never use violence against others.

Matt. 11:12 – the kingdom of heaven suffers violence and the violent take it by force
Matt. 17:12 – likewise shall also the son of man suffer
Acts 5:41 – rejoicing that they were counted worthy to suffer shame for his name
Rom. 8:17 – heirs of God, and joint-heirs with Christ, if so be that we suffer with him, that we may be also glorified together
Rom. 8:18 – the sufferings of this present time are not worthy to be compared with the glory that shall be revealed in us
I Cor. 4:12 – being persecuted, we suffer it
II Cor. 1:5 – the sufferings of Christ abound in us
II Cor. 1:6 – whether we be afflicted, it is for your consolation and salvation, which is effectual in the enduring of the same sufferings which we also suffer
II Cor. 1:7 – you are partakers of the sufferings
Gal. 3:4 – have you suffered so many things in vain?
Gal. 6:12 – lest they should suffer persecution for the cross of Christ
Phil. 1:29 – to you it is given on behalf of Christ, not only to believe on him, but also to suffer for his sake
Phil. 3:10 – that I may know the fellowship of his sufferings, being made conformable to his death
Col. 1:24 – who now rejoice in my sufferings for you
I Thess. 2:2 – we had suffered before, and were shamefully treated as you know
I Thess. 2:14 – for you have also suffered similar things by your own countrymen
II Thess. 1:5 – your patience and faith in all your persecutions that you endure that you may be counted worthy of the kingdom of God, for which you also suffer
II Tim. 1:12 – because of which I also suffer these things
II Tim. 2:9,12 – if we suffer we shall also reign with him
II Tim. 3:12 – everyone who lives godly in Christ Jesus shall suffer persecution
I Peter 2:19 - For one is approved if, mindful of God, he endures pain while suffering unjustly. I Peter 2:20 - But if when you do right and suffer for it you take it patiently, you have God's approval.
I Peter 2:21 - For to this you have been called, because Christ also suffered for you, leaving you an example, that you should follow in his steps.
I Peter 2:23 - When he was reviled, he did not revile in return; when he suffered, he did not threaten; but he trusted to him who judges justly.
I Peter 3:14 - But even if you do suffer for righteousness' sake, you will be blessed.
I Peter 3:17 - For it is better to suffer for doing right, if that should be God's will, than for doing wrong.
I Peter 3:18 - For Christ also suffered for sins once for all, the righteous for the unrighteous
I Peter 4:1 - Since therefore Christ suffered in the flesh, arm yourselves with the same thought, for whoever has suffered in the flesh has ceased from sin
I Peter 4:13 – But rejoice in so far as you share Christ's sufferings, that you may also rejoice and be glad when his glory is revealed.
I Peter 4:16 - yet if one suffers as a Christian, let him not be ashamed, but under that name let him glorify God.
I Peter 4:19 - Therefore let those who suffer according to God's will do right and entrust their souls to a faithful Creator.
I Peter 5:10 - And after you have suffered a little while, the God of all grace, who has called you to his eternal glory in Christ, will himself restore, establish, and strengthen you.
Rev. 2:10 – fear none of those things that you shall suffer

45. Threaten
In scripture the enemies of God’s people threatened physical harm to them. In suffering unjust physical attack, Christians must follow Jesus’ example in not threatening their enemies. When Christian masters were instructed not to threaten their slaves, this included threats of physical harm and in effect implied that slaves could leave without being forced to return.

Acts 4:17 - But that it spread no further among the people, let us strongly threaten them, that they speak to no one in this name from now on.
Acts 4:21 - So when they had further threatened them, they let them go, finding nothing how they might punish them
Acts 4:29 - And now, Lord, see their threatenings: and grant to your servants, that with all boldness they may speak your word
Acts 9:1 - And Saul, still shouting threatenings and slaughter against the disciples of the Lord, went to the high priest
Eph. 6:9 - And masters, do the same things unto them, do not threaten: knowing that your Master also is in heaven; neither is there respect of persons with him.
I Peter 2:23 - Who, when he was reviled, reviled not again; when he suffered, he threatened not; but committed himself to him who judges righteously

46. Tribulation
The word tribulation in these passages refers to difficulties and persecutions of every kind caused by those who oppose our faith. Christians can “glory” in this when they suffer patiently. Comfort in tribulation comes from God.

John 16:33 - These things I have spoken to you, that in me you might have peace. In the world you shall have tribulation: but be of good cheer; I have overcome the world.
Acts 14:22 - we must through much tribulation enter into the kingdom of God.
Rom. 5:3 - And not only so, but we glory in tribulations also: knowing that tribulation works patience
Rom. 8:35 - Who shall separate us from the love of Christ? shall tribulation… or persecution… or sword?
Rom. 12:12 - patient in tribulation
II Cor. 1:4 - Who comforts us in all our tribulation, that we may be able to comfort them which are in any trouble, by the comfort wherewith we ourselves are comforted by God.
II Cor. 7:4 - Great is my boldness of speech toward you, great is my glorying in you: I am filled with comfort, I am exceeding joyful in all our tribulation.
Eph. 3:13 - Wherefore I desire that you faint not at my tribulations for you which is your glory.
I Thess. 3:4 - For truly, when we were with you, we told you before that we should suffer tribulation
II Thess. 1:4 - So that we ourselves glory in you in the churches of God for your patience and faith in all your persecutions and tribulations that you endure.
Rev. 1:9 - I John, who also am your brother, and companion in tribulation
Rev. 2:10 - Fear none of those things which you shall suffer: behold, the devil shall cast some of you into prison, that you may be tried; and you shall have tribulation ten days: be faithful unto death, and I will give you a crown of life.

47. Terror
Christians should not be afraid of the terrible threats and trouble caused by the physical attacks and verbal abuse of others.

I Peter 3:14 – be not afraid of their terror, neither be troubled

48. Vengeance
Christians can firmly rely upon the judgment of God against their enemies and must never exercise vengeance of any kind against them.

Luke 18:7-8 - And shall not God avenge his own elect, who cry day and night to him, though he bear long with them? I tell you that he will avenge them speedily.
Rom. 12:19 - Dearly beloved, avenge not yourselves, but rather wait for divine wrath: for it is written, Vengeance is mine; I will repay, says the Lord. Therefore if your enemy is hungry, feed him; if he is thirsty, give him drink
1 Thess. 4:6 - That no man go beyond and defraud his brother in any matter: because the Lord is the avenger of all such, as we also have warned you before and testified.
Heb. 10:30 - For we know him who has said, Vengeance belongs unto me, I will repay, says the Lord. And again, The Lord shall judge his people.
Rev. 6:10 - And they cried with a loud voice, saying, How long, O Lord, holy and true, do you not judge and avenge our blood on them that dwell on the earth?
Rev. 18:20 - Rejoice over her, you heaven, and you holy apostles and prophets; for God has avenged you on her.
Rev. 19:2 - For true and righteous are his judgments: for he has judged the great whore, who corrupted the earth with her fornication, and has avenged the blood of his servants at her hand.

49. Violence
Physical violence is done to the kingdom of heaven. John the Baptist disarmed soldiers by telling them to do no violence to anyone. This is the rule of the kingdom of God in contrast to the rule given to Israel by Moses.

Matt. 11:12 - And from the days of John the Baptist until now the kingdom of heaven suffers violence, and the violent take it by force.
Luke 3:14 - And the soldiers likewise demanded him, saying, And what shall we do? And he said to them, Do violence to no one, neither accuse any falsely; and be content with your wages.
Acts 21:35 - And when he came upon the stairs, so it was, that he was carried by the soldiers because of the violence of the people.

50. War/Warfare/Weapons
Paul states the case of pacifism and non-violence very clearly in this passage in which Christians are reminded that although they live in the physical world, their warfare and their weapons are not physical yet have great power in the war between good and evil.

II Cor. 10:3-5 - For though we live in the physical, we do not engage in physical warfare For the weapons of our warfare are not physical, but mighty through God to the pulling down of strong holds; casting down imaginations, and every high thing that exalts itself against the knowledge of God, and bringing into captivity every thought to the obedience of Christ

[Augustine2004]

Jesus said "That is enough" or "Permit even this" meaning it is enough to fulfill messianic prophecy (Luke 22:36-38). What was Jesus observed response when the sword was used? "Put it away." So the sword was to be present but not used.How you think that it proves the case for pacificism puzzles me. Isn't it possible that Jesus meant, "It's enough for self defense"? You need to present an argument that makes that possibility seem extremely unlikely or impossible.

[Augustine2004]

50. War/Warfare/Weapons
Paul states the case of pacifism and non-violence very clearly in this passage in which Christians are reminded that although they live in the physical world, their warfare and their weapons are not physical yet have great power in the war between good and evil.

II Cor. 10:3-5 - For though we live in the physical, we do not engage in physical warfare For the weapons of our warfare are not physical, but mighty through God to the pulling down of strong holds; casting down imaginations, and every high thing that exalts itself against the knowledge of God, and bringing into captivity every thought to the obedience of ChristJesus' followers especially the leaders often put themselves in the way of overwhelming force and harm to fulfil the Great Commission. Persausive but hardly conclusive case for pacificsm. As for the verse quoted above, again, persuasive but hardly conclusive. Paul didn't necessarily mean that if faced with a kill-or-be-killed situation, you should not kill but allow yourself to be killed. Maybe he only meant that physical warfare is not a principal M.O. of Jesus' followers.

[Obsidian]

Luke, dude, I'm not gonna waste my time responding to you line by line every time you copy-and-paste something from whatever hippie website you find. Come up with a rational, coherent argument, or just give up.

You can take verses out of context all day long, but a holistic view of the Bible makes it clear that justified force is actually a righteous action. You've suggested that Jesus added on new moral laws non-existent from the founding of the world, but that argument is heresy. The Bible says Jesus is the Word incarnate (John 1:1), and the Bible makes it clear that God's ethics are immutable. Furthermore, Jesus himself admitted that he did not alter the law, but rather fulfilled it -- referring to ceramonial law, not morality itself. In fact, he reitered all non-ceramonial law when he restated the two general commandments: 1) Love God, and 2) Love thy neighbor. These weren't new ideas. If all violence were evil, then God actually commanded Old Testament believers to sin on multiple occasions. David, a precursor to Christ, would probably be the worst sinner of all. The Old Testament distinction between just and unjust violence (see Genesis 9:6) would be an evil command from God.

You've taken plenty of verses out of context, but you've ignored the numerous soldiers who joined the Christian faith, who were never told to renounce their duties. On the contrary, the Bible states that even before he heard the Gospel, Cornelius the centurion was already a "just man" who "feared God." In Luke 3:14, John the Baptist refers to private robbery, as evidenced by his command that soldiers should be content with their wages. The verb sometimes translated "violence" for that verse means "to shake" or "to intimidate," as the context makes clear. Even St. Clement, whom you seem to adore, mentioned this point (http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/text/clement-instructor-book3.html). (John the Baptist also condemned Herod for incest and adultery, not for the use of force.) Whereas Jesus would ordinarily tell repentant sinners to stop sinning, no where does the Bible command soldiers to leave the military.

You've implicitly suggested that Jesus commanded his disciples to sin when he ordered them to purchase weapons. Would Jesus ever say, "Purchase two idols" or "Buy two kilos of cocaine" or "Go sleep with two prostitutes"?

You've ignored Jesus's, Paul's, and Peter's admonitions that people with lawful authority are actually God's servants "to do good." (John 18:36, John 19:11, Romans 13:3-4, 1 Peter 2:13-14) You've ignored that Jesus commands us to pay lawful taxes to support these figures. In Acts 23:12-24, Paul actually utilizes military power to protect himself from forty assassins. He doesn't just "trust God" to protect him without taking any defensive measures himself. But perhaps you think Paul was sinning when he asked the Romans for protection?

You've also ignored the biblical teaching that parents in authority should discipline their children, which necessarily involves violence or the force of violence. (The Bible also discusses other situations involving authority -- authority backed up by force -- such as the husband-wife relationship and the master-slave relationship.)

You've also ignored Jesus's implicit condonation of force in his parables (e.g., Matthew 24:43). and Paul's praise of historical figures who, through faith, conquered foreign enemies (Hebrews 11).

Perhaps you can explain your worldview a little more clearly, because it seems you are condemning self-defense, the military, the police, parental discipline, and virtually every form of authority -- all without biblical mandate.

God never looks kindly on people who add to his Word based on their own feelings, where he has not spoken. Overall, try thinking logically for yourself, with faith in God's Word. If you're not even gonna argue coherently but are just going to cut-and-paste without thinking, then I'm done with you.

[Daniel Keeran]

How you think that it proves the case for pacificism puzzles me. Isn't it possible that Jesus meant, "It's enough for self defense"? You need to present an argument that makes that possibility seem extremely unlikely or impossible.

Jesus said the prophecy must be fulfilled and puit it away. There is nothing in this case that can be interpreted as using the sword for self-defense.

[Daniel Keeran]

If you are going to use the OT to justify Christian use of violence, do you also condone genocide as God commanded Israel to conduct in some cases?

Once you answer this, I'll take up your next point but first I think we must address your use of God's commanding Israel and giving power to Israel to win military victory.

[Augustine2004]

Jesus said the prophecy must be fulfilled and puit it away. There is nothing in this case that can be interpreted as using the sword for self-defense."Don't ever use the sword again; sell, give away, or throw away the sword soon. Go thenceforth unarmed."

When in Acts the group of Roman soldiers came in response to the mob's stoning of Paul, he told them, "Hey, guys, don't bother. Go away, and let them stone me." Later, when the Romans planned an escort for him, he said, "Hey, don't bother. I'll go by myself."

[Obsidian]

Actually, I have no inherent problem with killing civilians in warfare. And that's all "genocide" really is, except on a broader scale. But I don't believe genocide is appropriate in the modern era because there's simply no purpose for it. Just because God commands it in some cases doesn't mean we have the authorization for it whenever we choose. If Israel had tried to commit genocide against the Edomites or the Egyptians, that would have been sinful. On the other hand, God specifically gave Israel a broad authorization to execute criminals and fight enemies. It didn't just involve specific instances. Moreover, Genesis 9:6 actually applies to all of humanity, not just Israel.

I think one of the biggest problems with your theology is that the OT says to "Love your neighbor as yourself" also. It also says to love your enemies, as when God commands you to help even your enemy find his livestock if they wander into your area. The early Christians carried around the OT as scripture before they compiled the NT. Your assumption that "Love" is some new command makes the OT largely irrelevant in interpreting God's will.

Regarding your strange interpretation of Jesus's command to purchase a weapon, it makes a lot more sense if you understand Jesus as saying, "The world will consider you sinners (I'll be numbered with transgressors); therefore they are going to try to kill you. Get ready!" Your interpretation, that swords are evil and that Jesus intentionally chose to carry swords to foster the image of evil, seems rather absurd. For one thing, you've already pointed out that the rest of the world considered self-defense (and legitimate authority) perfectly righteous. Why would carrying a sword make people think any less of Jesus?

It sounds like you're saying that Jesus deliberately tried to make people think he was wicked, but not only would that be silly, but people already thought he was wicked simply because he opposed the religious leaders; swords would be unnecessary.

Also, my interpretation makes more sense because in the context, Jesus is talking about carrying a bag, and a purse, and a sword -- whereas in the beginning his disciples had been largely accepted and had not required any of those three items. I guess you could also argue that bags and purses are evil, but that would be kind of dumb.

[Obsidian]

I would have warned the church in this story (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,506886,00.html) to arm themselves for defense, in accordance with Jesus's command to purchase weapons. Correct me if I misunderstand your theology, but it sounds like you would condemn as sinners the men who wrestled the gunman to the ground. In your view, they should have "resisted not evil" and "turned the other cheek" and actually allowed him to stab people to death with a knife once his gun stopped operating. Am I mis-stating your position?

By the way, I have always believed in sola scripture, but thanks largely to this discussion, I have begun examining church history. I recently found this quote by Ignatius in his letter to Polycarp,


Let not widows be neglected. Be thou, after the Lord, their protector and friend.

It's hard to imagine being a human "protector" if God is the only person allowed to use force for any reason.

[Augustine2004]

I’ve struggled to understand what is meant by all those passages from ‘resist not evil’ to ‘turn the other cheek.’ One reason is of course not to do anything that might block or deflect Jesus’ mission (crucifixion and the establishment of the Church both visible and invisible). Could there be other reasons, though? Might the passages be applicable only at certain times or have limits? Of course we must consider all of the Bible in seeking answers to those questions. One point to consider, though: If one has, as the Americans put it, “the jump on you,” you don’t really have much choice but to do as he tells you to do. Another point: I suspect “resist” means something like, “rebel against” or “disobey.” It does not mean, “do not defend yourself against.” Consider 2 Ti 3:8. Also Jas 4:7 and 1 Pe 5:9. However, there’s Roman 13:2.

[Daniel Keeran]

"Don't ever use the sword again; sell, give away, or throw away the sword soon. Go thenceforth unarmed."

When in Acts the group of Roman soldiers came in response to the mob's stoning of Paul, he told them, "Hey, guys, don't bother. Go away, and let them stone me." Later, when the Romans planned an escort for him, he said, "Hey, don't bother. I'll go by myself."

Your mockery aside, the context shows clearly that Peter's sword during the arrest of Jesus, was for the fulfillment of messianic prophecy, not for use in self-defense.

In the case of Paul, he was arrested as causing a riot and said later that if he has done anything worthy of death he refused not to die. One who is arrested on charges is not at liberty to tell the soldiers to go away.

[Daniel Keeran]

I’ve struggled to understand what is meant by all those passages from ‘resist not evil’ to ‘turn the other cheek.’ One reason is of course not to do anything that might block or deflect Jesus’ mission (crucifixion and the establishment of the Church both visible and invisible). Could there be other reasons, though? Might the passages be applicable only at certain times or have limits? Of course we must consider all of the Bible in seeking answers to those questions. One point to consider, though: If one has, as the Americans put it, “the jump on you,” you don’t really have much choice but to do as he tells you to do. Another point: I suspect “resist” means something like, “rebel against” or “disobey.” It does not mean, “do not defend yourself against.” Consider 2 Ti 3:8. Also Jas 4:7 and 1 Pe 5:9. However, there’s Roman 13:2.

Jesus defines what resist not means when he says "if someone strikes you on one cheek, turn to him the other also." The whole of the New testament teaching and the example of the early Christians screams pacifism.

[Daniel Keeran]

I would have warned the church in this story (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,506886,00.html) to arm themselves for defense, in accordance with Jesus's command to purchase weapons. Correct me if I misunderstand your theology, but it sounds like you would condemn as sinners the men who wrestled the gunman to the ground. In your view, they should have "resisted not evil" and "turned the other cheek" and actually allowed him to stab people to death with a knife once his gun stopped operating. Am I mis-stating your position?

By the way, I have always believed in sola scripture, but thanks largely to this discussion, I have begun examining church history. I recently found this quote by Ignatius in his letter to Polycarp,

It's hard to imagine being a human "protector" if God is the only person allowed to use force for any reason.

It hard for me to see use of force in the role of protector of widows; it probably means to speak up for them and provide for them in the face of destitution.

You make an excellent point that if Jesus mention of swords was for self-defense, this would have been the example used by the church to defend itself against persecution.

Allowing victims to be assailed? What we see in scripture and early church history is use only of spiritual weapons, forgiveness, self-sacrifice.

[Augustine2004]

Your mockery aside, the context shows clearly that Peter's sword during the arrest of Jesus, was for the fulfillment of messianic prophecy, not for use in self-defense.Please explain. What about Luke 22:49? It wasn't just Peter with the sword. We don't know how many swords there were.


In the case of Paul, he was arrested as causing a riotGood point but not conclusive.
and said later that if he has done anything worthy of death he refused not to die. How does your interpretation follow from that?
One who is arrested on charges is not at liberty to tell the soldiers to go away.I guess that's a good point. However, Paul had not yet been arrested by the time the soldiers stopped the mob.

[Obsidian]

So we've got Paul asking soldiers to protect him (that is, sin for him). He didn't tell them, "Put your swords down, or you will die." We've also got Paul admitting that if he is a rebel then he deserves death. Here's another few examples I just found:

"We are punished justly, for we are getting what our deeds deserve. But this man has done nothing wrong." (Luke 23:41) This is a comment made not only by a believer, but repeated without contradiction by Luke himself.

"God will judge those outside. "Expel the wicked man from among you." (1 Corinthians 5:13) This type of authority could only be backed up if you were willing to physically restrain the sinner from entering your sanctuary.

Also, here is a quote from Clement that disagrees with your dispensational theology.


So that, when one falls into any incurable evil, -- when taken possession of, for example, by wrong or covetousness, -- it will be for his good if he is put to death.

Feel free to explain away.

You're really arguing from silence in assuming that no Christians tried to protect themselves. I already gave you the example of the Armenians, and then of course there is Constantine himself, whom the church considered an avenger of evil and agent of God. I'll willingly grant you that if you are protected by a mob, peaceful martyrdom is the best response -- because otherwise, the best you can do is take a few people out with you.

[Obsidian]

I mentioned "turning the other cheek" because I knew it was your core verse, but what do you have to say about the notion that the "strike on the cheek" was a slap, and primarily an insult? Or about the fact that he's talking about private vengeance ("Eye for an eye"), not self-defense? Or about the fact that Jesus routinely used hyperbole? If any of those three possibilities is true, then the one verse which you are taking literally -- above all others -- completely falls apart.

And I should also point out that God himself loves his enemies...up to a point (Romans 5:10). He also kills them sometimes (Acts 5:9-10, Acts 12:23, Revelation 20:14). If we are to be like God, we should strike a balance based on his revealed character, and not drift toward hedonistic or ascetic extremes.

[Augustine2004]

Daniel K, you will have to eliminate the two possibilities that Jesus was telling us to not sweat the small stuff (“turn the other cheek”) and not to respond to insults if responding will not do much good. The examples that Jesus gave are not big deals, are they? I walk more than a mile 5 or 6 times a week.

Maybe Jesus didn't want an armed, physical revolution. Just a spiritual revolution.

[Daniel Keeran]

1. Please explain. What about Luke 22:49? It wasn't just Peter with the sword. We don't know how many swords there were.
REPLY: It is necessary to combine all accounts of the incident. Jesus had requested they buy swords previously to fulfill messianic prophecy that Jesus would be "numbered with transgressors." If swords were ever justified for defense, the early church didi not take the hint from this account.

2. Paul said later that if he has done anything worthy of death he refused not to die.
How does your interpretation follow from that?
REPLY: Paul clearly said he had no charges to bring against the Jews although he was within his rights to do so. Paul never called upon force for protection or defense, but rather stated he would not do so. But he was willing to be subject to whatever the law required in case of his own possible violation in the matter.

3. One who is arrested on charges is not at liberty to tell the soldiers to go away.
I guess that's a good point. However, Paul had not yet been arrested by the time the soldiers stopped the mob.
REPLY: The point holds that Paul never requested protection at any point, before or after his arrest.

[Daniel Keeran]

Daniel K, you will have to eliminate the two possibilities that Jesus was telling us to not sweat the small stuff (“turn the other cheek”) and not to respond to insults if responding will not do much good. The examples that Jesus gave are not big deals, are they? I walk more than a mile 5 or 6 times a week.

Maybe Jesus didn't want an armed, physical revolution. Just a spiritual revolution.

The non-resistance passage is consistent with other passages regarding patient endurance of suffering violence. This is the common theme throughout the New Testament.

[Daniel Keeran]

I mentioned "turning the other cheek" because I knew it was your core verse, but what do you have to say about the notion that the "strike on the cheek" was a slap, and primarily an insult? Or about the fact that he's talking about private vengeance ("Eye for an eye"), not self-defense? Or about the fact that Jesus routinely used hyperbole? If any of those three possibilities is true, then the one verse which you are taking literally -- above all others -- completely falls apart.

And I should also point out that God himself loves his enemies...up to a point (Romans 5:10). He also kills them sometimes (Acts 5:9-10, Acts 12:23, Revelation 20:14). If we are to be like God, we should strike a balance based on his revealed character, and not drift toward hedonistic or ascetic extremes.

To test the resist not passage, one needs to see how it plays out in scripture following this teaching to see if the meaning holds throughout the life of the early church, such as Paul's teaching about "patient endurance" in suffering violence.

God can exact justice directly (also Jesus' cleansing the temple) or through civil government (Romans 13), but Christians belong to another government that takes priority. Christians pay their taxes to godless or pagan governments, but do not participate as agents of force. Pacifism is not an ascetic extreme that came from Pythagorean gnosticism; rather pacifism is fulfillment of the messianic kingdom.

[Daniel Keeran]

So we've got Paul asking soldiers to protect him (that is, sin for him). He didn't tell them, "Put your swords down, or you will die." We've also got Paul admitting that if he is a rebel then he deserves death. Here's another few examples I just found:

"We are punished justly, for we are getting what our deeds deserve. But this man has done nothing wrong." (Luke 23:41) This is a comment made not only by a believer, but repeated without contradiction by Luke himself.

"God will judge those outside. "Expel the wicked man from among you." (1 Corinthians 5:13) This type of authority could only be backed up if you were willing to physically restrain the sinner from entering your sanctuary.

Also, here is a quote from Clement that disagrees with your dispensational theology.



Feel free to explain away.

You're really arguing from silence in assuming that no Christians tried to protect themselves. I already gave you the example of the Armenians, and then of course there is Constantine himself, whom the church considered an avenger of evil and agent of God. I'll willingly grant you that if you are protected by a mob, peaceful martyrdom is the best response -- because otherwise, the best you can do is take a few people out with you.

Teaching to patiently endurte suffering is not an argument from silence but an argument from clear directives. The fact that some Christians may have used violence does not support the use of violence but shows that some Christians were not willing to pay the price of their own death.
Hebrews 12:4
In your struggle against sin, you have not yet resisted to the point of shedding your blood.

Never do we read in scripture that Christians were to shed others blood but rather to patiently endure suffering and have their own blood shed.

[Daniel Keeran]

1. Actually, I have no inherent problem with killing civilians in warfare. And that's all "genocide" really is, except on a broader scale. ...
REPLY: I am speechless

2. I think one of the biggest problems with your theology is that the OT says to "Love your neighbor as yourself" also. It also says to love your enemies...
REPLY: Where does the OT say "Love your enemies"?

3. Regarding your strange interpretation of Jesus's command to purchase a weapon, it makes a lot more sense if you understand Jesus as saying, "The world will consider you sinners (I'll be numbered with transgressors); therefore they are going to try to kill you. Get ready!"
REPLY: So in this case the early church should have carried weapons for self-defense and brought them out when they were being stoned, etc. God would have been on their side and given power to be successful.

[Augustine2004]

Daniel K, surely you don't mean, put yourself in harm's way? And, do all you can to avoid letting your blood be shed, even if it means shedding the other guy's blood.

Yes, suffer up to a point, but not at the expense of what may be your life, if you can possibly avoid losing it.

[Augustine2004]

2. I think one of the biggest problems with your theology is that the OT says to "Love your neighbor as yourself" also. It also says to love your enemies...
REPLY: Where does the OT say "Love your enemies"?Well, David could have killed Saul (twice in fact), but refrained, despite Saul's persecution of him.

[Obsidian]

But when the son of Paul's sister heard of this plot, he went into the barracks and told Paul.

Then Paul called one of the centurions and said, "Take this young man to the commander; he has something to tell him." So he took him to the commander.
The centurion said, "Paul, the prisoner, sent for me and asked me to bring this young man to you because he has something to tell you."

The commander took the young man by the hand, drew him aside and asked, "What is it you want to tell me?"

He said: "The Jews have agreed to ask you to bring Paul before the Sanhedrin tomorrow on the pretext of wanting more accurate information about him. Don't give in to them, because more than forty of them are waiting in ambush for him.
...


And to the contrary, I firmly believe that your doctrine comes from gnosticism. One main tenant of gnosticism was that there were actually two gods: One for the Old Testament, and another for the New. The old god was considered an inferior "demi-urge" who created the material world.

Orthodox Christianity, however, states both that Jesus is the God of the Old Testament and that he became matter. To argue that his personality changed or that his definitions of "love" changed is simply false. You're also contradicting Jesus, who stated that he came to fulfill the ceramonial law, not to abolish the law. If Pre-Incarnate Jesus told Noah that "love" means "Whoever sheds the blood of man, by man shall his blood be shed," why would "love" mean anything different today?

You aren't embracing full-fledged (polytheistic) gnosticism, but you are suggesting that God has had two natures and two separate definitions of "love." You aren't an explicit polytheist, but you're making essentially the same problem that Marcion (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marcion) made. Practically, the main problem with your belief is that it doesn't allow us to examine the Old Testament to see God's character. Not only that, but God never established any expansive moral code in the New Testament -- so without the Old Testament, we have no comprehensive way of knowing God's will for our lives.

You've made a lot out of the fact that we don't see self-defense or widescale rebellion in the New Testament. But how often did we see it in the Old Testament? For example, the Bible doesn't report Shadrach, Meshach, or Abednego trying to wrestle the swords from their guards. When your population is a powerless minority, "self-defense" simply isn't feasible.

[Obsidian]

"If you come across your enemy's ox or donkey wandering off, be sure to take it back to him. If you see the donkey of someone who hates you fallen down under its load, do not leave it there; be sure you help him with it" (Exodus 23:4-5).

"Do not seek revenge or bear a grudge against one of your people, but love your neighbor as yourself. I am the LORD" (Leviticus 19:18).

"Simeon and Levi are brothers—
their swords [a] are weapons of violence.
Let me not enter their council,
let me not join their assembly,
for they have killed men in their anger
and hamstrung oxen as they pleased.
Cursed be their anger, so fierce,
and their fury, so cruel!
I will scatter them in Jacob
and disperse them in Israel."
(Genesis 49:5-7, Jacob Speaking, referencing Levi's and Simeon's excessive vengeance in Genesis 34:25)

Also, the entire book of Jonah is about love for a national enemy.

[Daniel Keeran]

"If you come across your enemy's ox or donkey wandering off, be sure to take it back to him. If you see the donkey of someone who hates you fallen down under its load, do not leave it there; be sure you help him with it" (Exodus 23:4-5).

"Do not seek revenge or bear a grudge against one of your people, but love your neighbor as yourself. I am the LORD" (Leviticus 19:18).

"Simeon and Levi are brothers—
their swords [a] are weapons of violence.
Let me not enter their council,
let me not join their assembly,
for they have killed men in their anger
and hamstrung oxen as they pleased.
Cursed be their anger, so fierce,
and their fury, so cruel!
I will scatter them in Jacob
and disperse them in Israel."
(Genesis 49:5-7, Jacob Speaking, referencing Levi's and Simeon's excessive vengeance in Genesis 34:25)

Also, the entire book of Jonah is about love for a national enemy.

Grasping at straws. None of this or anywhere in the OT do we find the teaching: "Love your enemies." Jonah is about God's commanding Jonah to call Nineveh to repentance.

[Daniel Keeran]

You've made a lot out of the fact that we don't see self-defense or widescale rebellion in the New Testament. But how often did we see it in the Old Testament? For example, the Bible doesn't report Shadrach, Meshach, or Abednego trying to wrestle the swords from their guards. When your population is a powerless minority, "self-defense" simply isn't feasible.

We DO see authorized use of force and violence in the OT but never in the NT, and its absence in the latter is not due to the fact they were a minority but for "patient endurance in siuffering" as Jesus demonstrated.

[Daniel Keeran]

Daniel K, surely you don't mean, put yourself in harm's way? And, do all you can to avoid letting your blood be shed, even if it means shedding the other guy's blood.

Yes, suffer up to a point, but not at the expense of what may be your life, if you can possibly avoid losing it.

It would be more in keeping with Jesus teaching for Christians to be caregivers in conflict situations and to make no distinction between helping friend or foe. Certainly Christians should not die if they can avoid it. Killing is not an option. It is better to die than to kill, and to sacrifice oneself to save a victim if necessary, excluding killing the enemy.

[Obsidian]

I'm assuming that you don't believe in two separate gods. It appears, instead, that you either 1) accept that God commanded the Israelites to sin or 2) believe that God's moral character changes over time. Which is correct?

[Augustine2004]

It would be more in keeping with Jesus teaching for Christians to be caregivers in conflict situations and to make no distinction between helping friend or foe. Certainly Christians should not die if they can avoid it. Killing is not an option. It is better to die than to kill, and to sacrifice oneself to save a victim if necessary, excluding killing the enemy.Elsewhere in TWeb, people say in effect that murder is not an option, but there can be such a thing as justified killing. Do you agree? When is killing justified? When not?

[Obsidian]

If Jesus violated the law of God (see Genesis 9:6) or commanded others to do so, then he was a sinner and could not be the Messiah. I'd just like you guys to think your doctrines through before you try binding people's consciences with your illogical and ascetic opinions. The Church thought it defeated gnosticism in the third century, but we were clearly mistaken.

God doesn't change.

[Daniel Keeran]

I'm assuming that you don't believe in two separate gods. It appears, instead, that you either 1) accept that God commanded the Israelites to sin or 2) believe that God's moral character changes over time. Which is correct?

God gives the life of man and can take it back. In the OT he used Israel to take life back. In the messianic prophecies of the kingdom, God has decreed non-violence under the rule of the Prince of Peace, and of the increase of his government there shall be no end.

[Daniel Keeran]

If Jesus violated the law of God (see Genesis 9:6) or commanded others to do so, then he was a sinner and could not be the Messiah. I'd just like you guys to think your doctrines through before you try binding people's consciences with your illogical and ascetic opinions. The Church thought it defeated gnosticism in the third century, but we were clearly mistaken.

God doesn't change.

Certainly there is one God. In the OT there was punishment for sin. In the NT there is forgiveness through the sacrifice of Christ.

[Daniel Keeran]

Elsewhere in TWeb, people say in effect that murder is not an option, but there can be such a thing as justified killing. Do you agree? When is killing justified? When not?

Christians are never justified in killing except when the person is perhaps psychotic and not culpable.

[Obsidian]

Your theory might make sense, except that we know Jesus obeyed the Law of God down to an iota before he was killed. It sounds like you are suggesting that, prior to Jesus's death, he was advocating sin. And then subsequent to Jesus's death, God's will changed.

[Augustine2004]

By 'not culpable' in that context, I think you mean, 'unable to tell right from wrong.'

[Daniel Keeran]

By 'not culpable' in that context, I think you mean, 'unable to tell right from wrong.'


correct... a psychotic peron is not evil but like a tornado or forest fire

Christians are given only spirtual means, not carnal means, to conquer evil, and if Christians must die in the struggle, it is an honour to participate in the suffering and sacrifice of Christ because they are called to this as the non-violent way of the cross.

[Daniel Keeran]

Your theory might make sense, except that we know Jesus obeyed the Law of God down to an iota before he was killed. It sounds like you are suggesting that, prior to Jesus's death, he was advocating sin. And then subsequent to Jesus's death, God's will changed.

Jesus fulfilled the law including as Prince of Peace to fulfill the messianic expectations of Isaiah 2and Isaiah 11, etc. Jesus of course never advocated sin before or after his death. We know that the covenant of God changed as stated in Hebrews 8, for example.

[Augustine2004]

correct... a psychotic peron is not evil but like a tornado or forest fire

Christians are given only spirtual means, not carnal means, to conquer evil, and if Christians must die in the struggle, it is an honour to participate in the suffering and sacrifice of Christ because they are called to this as the non-violent way of the cross.Paul was given only spiritual means, not carnal means, to tromp all around the Roman Empire to bring the Good News, scold wayward churches, and dictate or write epistles. A Holy Ghost.

[Obsidian]

Daniel, the main verses that you're using to justify your theory come from Jesus's lips, specifically his commands to "turn the other cheek" and to "love your enemies." Jesus gave both those teachings before his death, to Jews, during the Old Covenant. To prove my point, you can see that at times, Jesus even gave instructions for sacrificing animals (See, e.g., Matthew 5:23). Obviously, the New Covenant doesn't involve sacrificing animals. As the Messiah under the Law, Jesus could not possibly have contradicted the Law of Moses. He merely clarified it. He said exactly this in Matthew 5:17-19. And I already pointed out to you some Old Testament verses which said essentially the same thing Jesus did, but which the Pharisees were teaching people to ignore.

Of course, I don't believe we should offer animal sacrifices anymore because they are obsolete, but I don't derive that teaching from Jesus's sermon on the mount. I understand it from common sense and from the Apostle Paul, who wrote following Jesus's ascension. Anything Jesus said prior to his death, on the other hand, must be understood within the Jewish context.

Finally, I don't think I've yet seen you respond to Romans 13, where the violent king is called "God's servant."

[Augustine2004]

Matthew 5:23 only says 'gift' (NKJV).

[Obsidian]

We've turned the word "altar" into a church term, but it originally meant a place for burning up sacrifices.

[Augustine2004]

We've turned the word "altar" into a church term, but it originally meant a place for burning up sacrifices.Yes, but you wrote 'animals' Not necessarily so. Could be grains or fruits. To be sure, there are the sales of all those birdies that made Jesus wroth, for example.

[Daniel Keeran]

Daniel, the main verses that you're using to justify your theory come from Jesus's lips, specifically his commands to "turn the other cheek" and to "love your enemies." Jesus gave both those teachings before his death, to Jews, during the Old Covenant. To prove my point, you can see that at times, Jesus even gave instructions for sacrificing animals (See, e.g., Matthew 5:23). Obviously, the New Covenant doesn't involve sacrificing animals. As the Messiah under the Law, Jesus could not possibly have contradicted the Law of Moses. He merely clarified it. He said exactly this in Matthew 5:17-19. And I already pointed out to you some Old Testament verses which said essentially the same thing Jesus did, but which the Pharisees were teaching people to ignore.

Of course, I don't believe we should offer animal sacrifices anymore because they are obsolete, but I don't derive that teaching from Jesus's sermon on the mount. I understand it from common sense and from the Apostle Paul, who wrote following Jesus's ascension. Anything Jesus said prior to his death, on the other hand, must be understood within the Jewish context.

Finally, I don't think I've yet seen you respond to Romans 13, where the violent king is called "God's servant."

John 16:13
But when he, the Spirit of truth, comes, he will guide you into all truth. He will not speak on his own; he will speak only what he hears, and he will tell you what is yet to come.

Luke 24:48
You are witnesses of these things. I am going to send you what my Father has promised; but stay in the city until you have been clothed with power from on high

[Obsidian]

So you're arguing...what? Are you saying that Jesus was simultaneously teaching two contradictory doctrines, one of justice and another of anarchy/pacifism? When Jesus gave his sermon on the mount, you're saying that he was defying Judaism, but only secretly? And then when the Holy Spirit came, the Holy Spirit would enlighten the disciples on the truly anti-Jewishness of Jesus's prior teachings?

Technically, I think that might still qualify as advocating sin, if he was speaking a lawful message and a lawless message simultaneously. Either that, or it's just plain deceptive. Either that, or the disciples should have plainly clarified. (Matthew: "Of course, when the Master spoke of turning the other cheek, he was obviously teaching the Jews with regard to interpersonal relationships, in accordance with the Law. But the Holy Spirit teaches us that he actually meant all governments and legitimate powers should lay down their arms, too.")

It just really intrigues me how strong an interest you seem to have in writing your own opinions into the morality of God. He couldn't possibly be teaching the same thing he had taught for the past 4000 years. It must have been something different from Genesis 9:6. You just can't fathom that it would be the same doctrine.

[TheologicalDisc]

this whole thread can be easily resolved with the simple fact that Jacob wrestled with God, I doubt a God against 'self defense' would wrestle with someone, that is unless you are talking about killing in self defense and not simply beating your assailant to a pulp, if it is the latter please ignore my irrelevant comment like I was never here *sneaks off like a ninja into the shadows*

[Augustine2004]

I think Abraham's rescue of Lot is more clearly to the point.

[Daniel Keeran]

But the Holy Spirit teaches us that he actually meant all governments and legitimate powers should lay down their arms, too."


No, God has always used governments and powers, pagan or not, legitimate or not, like Joseph's brothers, to do things that serve his purpose. God used pagan rulers as the "rod of my wrath" to punish Israel for their idolatry. Civil governments of every kind are today serving God's purpose by punishing evil and rewarding good, i.e. those who do what is right by doing things that keep order by not stealing, killing, lying, etc. This was true even in Roman times when Christians were persecuted by pagan tyrants. The role of Christians is to honor, obey and pay taxes, and pray for rulers (Romans 13), but no where does scripture allow Christians to participate as agents of force.

[Obsidian]

"I saw thrones on which were seated those who had been given authority to judge. And I saw the souls of those who had been beheaded because of their testimony for Jesus and because of the word of God. They had not worshiped the beast or his image and had not received his mark on their foreheads or their hands. They came to life and reigned with Christ a thousand years." Revelation 20:4

Ultimately you keep repeating the same dogma without responding to my arguments. If Jesus taught your theology, he would be a Jewish heretic, not the Messiah. God's morality is immutable, and he commanded the death of murderers (Genesis 9:6). That command applied not merely to Jews but to every single descendant of Noah.

Whenever the BIble says that someone is "God's servant to do you good," I think the assumption should be that he is doing righteous work unless the Bible states otherwise. In Acts 13:6-12, a government official even accepts Christ. There is no indication that he surrendered his post afterward. You've admitted that we should pay taxes to support governments. But what distinction is there between paying for death and causing the death yourself? Under your theory, there seems to be no moral difference between 1) paying taxes for a police force and 2) hiring a hitman to commit murder.

Just think about things holistically. A moral system only works if, when applied, it produces an excellent society. If 80% of the world's people adhered consistently to my moral system, the world would become a heavenly place. If 80% of the world's people consistently adopted your moral system, the world would become hell. 20% of the people would enslave or destroy the remaining 80%, who wouldn't even fight back. Under your system, that entire Baptist church in the article I showed you would be dead.

That is not a godly, moral system in the slightest. Any god who commanded such stupidity would not be worthy of worship. And your conscience has been "seared as though with a hot iron" (1 Timothy 4:2) if you think otherwise.

[Daniel Keeran]

"I saw thrones on which were seated those who had been given authority to judge. And I saw the souls of those who had been beheaded because of their testimony for Jesus and because of the word of God. They had not worshiped the beast or his image and had not received his mark on their foreheads or their hands. They came to life and reigned with Christ a thousand years." Revelation 20:4

Ultimately you keep repeating the same dogma without responding to my arguments. If Jesus taught your theology, he would be a Jewish heretic, not the Messiah. God's morality is immutable, and he commanded the death of murderers (Genesis 9:6). That command applied not merely to Jews but to every single descendant of Noah.

Whenever the BIble says that someone is "God's servant to do you good," I think the assumption should be that he is doing righteous work unless the Bible states otherwise. In Acts 13:6-12, a government official even accepts Christ. There is no indication that he surrendered his post afterward. You've admitted that we should pay taxes to support governments. But what distinction is there between paying for death and causing the death yourself? Under your theory, there seems to be no moral difference between 1) paying taxes for a police force and 2) hiring a hitman to commit murder.

Just think about things holistically. A moral system only works if, when applied, it produces an excellent society. If 80% of the world's people adhered consistently to my moral system, the world would become a heavenly place. If 80% of the world's people consistently adopted your moral system, the world would become hell. 20% of the people would enslave or destroy the remaining 80%, who wouldn't even fight back. Under your system, that entire Baptist church in the article I showed you would be dead.

That is not a godly, moral system in the slightest. Any god who commanded such stupidity would not be worthy of worship. And your conscience has been "seared as though with a hot iron" (1 Timothy 4:2) if you think otherwise.

The facts remain, we are commanded to render unto Ceasar, not to become Ceasar. Matthew 22:21. We belong to another kingdom that takes priority. "If possible, so far as it depends upon you, be at peace with all men." Romans 12

We are called to suffer and die, not to kill... 1 Peter 2.

Our weapons are not carnal.
"...some people who think that we live by the standards of this world. For though we live in the world, we do not wage war as the world does. The weapons we fight with are not the weapons of the world." 2 Corinthians 10

[Augustine2004]

Daniel K, you quoted Romans 12:18 correctly. However, you're clearly a poor reader. Think about what Paul could have written instead, if he wanted us to totally do nothing about evil by others.
Something like, "Strive always to be in peace with all men, even if someone is getting killed, robbed, raped, or otherwise tortured."

[Daniel Keeran]

Daniel K, you quoted Romans 12:18 correctly. However, you're clearly a poor reader. Think about what Paul could have written instead, if he wanted us to totally do nothing about evil by others.
Something like, "Strive always to be in peace with all men, even if someone is getting killed, robbed, raped, or otherwise tortured."

Jesus said to love neighbor as one loves oneself. So if one would not defend oneself with violence, neither should one defend a neighbor with violence. Jesus said, greater love has no man than to lay down his life... Paul said "overcome evil with good" (Romans 12).

So we can sacrifice ourselves to defend a victim. Fear not him who can harm the body..
But use of violence is far beyond the teaching of Christ.

If one can justify the use of violence to defend a victim, one can also justify pre-emptive force to protect victims when one knows their enemy is planning their death. This justifies aggressive acts of violence that lead to a spiral of violence. Once one opens pandora's logical box, then there is no way to close it again until all are destroyed or the stronger force vanquishes the foe as well as all future generations who can predictably seek vengeance; thus genocide is justified.

[Obsidian]

Daniel Keenan, you can love me best by accepting my doctrine. You're being far to moderate in your position. You should not defend yourself with violence OR words! I'm feeling hurt by your defense. Resist not evil.

[Augustine2004]

If I recall correctly, our priorities should be in this order: God, first above all; the immediate family; relatives outside the immediate family, if Christian; the members of your church; other churches; everyone else, except your relatives take precedence in that group.

For example if you see a stranger preparing to rape your daughter, what would you do?

If you are a Christian woman who sees that she is about to be raped, and does have a gun, what would you do with it?

[Daniel Keeran]

Daniel Keenan, you can love me best by accepting my doctrine. You're being far to moderate in your position. You should not defend yourself with violence OR words! I'm feeling hurt by your defense. Resist not evil.

I believe children of God have a moral obligation to make a verbal defense but not use reviling, mockery, or disrespect.

[Daniel Keeran]

If I recall correctly, our priorities should be in this order: God, first above all; the immediate family; relatives outside the immediate family, if Christian; the members of your church; other churches; everyone else, except your relatives take precedence in that group.

For example if you see a stranger preparing to rape your daughter, what would you do?

If you are a Christian woman who sees that she is about to be raped, and does have a gun, what would you do with it?

These did occur in the early church, and the teaching was/is to rejoice in suffering after having done all non-violence to prevent it.

[Augustine2004]

These did occur in the early church, and the teaching was/is to rejoice in suffering after having done all non-violence to prevent it.Yeah, after Peter cut off the servant’s ear, Jesus admonished Peter: “Peter! We’re supposed to be pacifists, remember? What were you doing carrying a sword!”

[Daniel Keeran]

Yeah, after Peter cut off the servant’s ear, Jesus admonished Peter: “Peter! We’re supposed to be pacifists, remember? What were you doing carrying a sword!”

No, he said, put your sword away. All who live by the sword will die....
This was done to fulfill messianic prophecy that Jesus would be arrested as a rebel.

[Augustine2004]

I agree we should seek peaceful solutions first in ordinary situations. However, when danger seems clear and immediate, we should use our weapons. I think that's what Jesus meant. He disapproved of Peter's action. What would cutting off a servant's ear solve? I wish the Bible provided more details. Was not the servant recognizable as such?

Probably Peter didn't realize that he had to allow his Lord to be taken so that the scripture prophecies may be fulfilled. Still, his action does not seem appropriate in the face of such overwhelming force.

Certainly, though, Jesus's reason for submitting to the group assembled to arrest him is adequate for not using weapons to resist.

[Obsidian]

Well here you go resorting again to the practices of the "early church." First of all, your characterization of the early church is false. Second, the fact that you are resorting to this "tradition" tactic shows how divorced your doctrine is from scripture.

Your exegesis of Jesus's command to buy a sword is deeply flawed for a number of reasons:


1. Isaiah 53 never said that the Messiah would "be arrested as a rebel." The prophecy merely said Jesus would be considered a sinner. Furthermore, carrying a purse and a bag -- which Jesus also commanded -- have nothing to do with rebellion. They have to do with self-sufficiency, just as a sword has to do with self-defense.

2. It would be lying to intentionally portray yourself as a rebel when in fact you are not.

3. Jesus essentially denied being a rebel when he saw the armed band of men coming for him. If he were trying to deceive everyone, his denial would have completely undercut his lie.

4. Jesus was charged his blasphemy, not rebellion, and when the sedition charge finally came up (that he was "King of the Jews"), no one at the trial mentioned anything about a sword.


And ultimately, according to Jesus's teaching, you will be considered "least in the kingdom of heaven" because you contradict the moral law of Moses. (See Matthew 5:19).

[Sir Wilshire]

Finally got some time for a reply... I'm going to skip over the discussion with Daniel Keeran.


I'm afraid the link you cited doesn't disagree with me:

I think it's a little arrogant of Holding to assume that he knows exactly how long the swords were, but he nonetheless admits that any type of sword may be used for self-defense.

I seems to me that his intent was to say that the passage can't be used to justify violence (wars or self-defense).

An advocation of war? We have addressed this matter in our trial piece -- some even think that Jesus equipped his followers with swords in anticipation of trouble, and note that Peter scuffled with the Temple police to aid in resisting Jesus' arrest. What an overstated case! The passage in Luke refers to only TWO swords

He shows it wasn't an endorsement for war by your cite. Then in my cite above he stresses that there were just two swords. If we try to have Jesus saying self-defense is justified and encouraged for Christians here, you would think he would tell them all to get swords. Furthermore, the title of Holding's article implies to me that the verses he's going through in this article can't be used by either side for their case.


And Rando's suggestion that Jesus was being metaphorical is just plainly absurd. Even if it were true, and if Jesus believed all violence were wrong, he would have explicitly told his disciples to get rid of their literal swords once he saw that they had them.

I'm posting the passage in question below since it's several pages back.

The final (and perhaps, most formidable) passage that may be advanced in favor of participation in violence by the people of God is found in Jesus' farewell speech to his disciples in Luke 22: He said to them, "But now if you have a purse, take it, and also a bag; and if you don't have a sword, sell your cloak and buy one. It is written: 'And he was numbered with the transgressors'; and I tell you that this must be fulfilled in me. Yes, what is written about me is reaching its fulfillment." The disciples said, "See, Lord, here are two swords." "That is enough," he replied.
-Luke 22:36-38

Back in my college days, this was the only passage we could conceive of even possibly supporting armament, self-defense, and violence by God's people. The plain reading of this passage looks as if Jesus is ordering his disciples to go buy swords to protect themselves from the brigands and other hostile forces that would assail them. Yet all is not as it appears in this text. First, pragmatically, two swords could in no way be considered sufficient protection for twelve men who were being sent out in small groups- some would be left defenseless. Secondly, the allusion in 22:35 to the previous mission in Luke 9:1-2 exhibits the contrast between the two missions which serves to illuminate what this passage is really saying. In the first discipleship training mission, the disciples were sent out with nothing, and were to rely solely on the goodwill of those whom they encountered to meet their needs. Now however, something has changed. In chapter 22, Jesus is acutely aware of the growing resistance to his mission in Galilee and in Jerusalem, and is sternly warning his disciples that they must be prepared to meet with fierce resistance, rejection, and persecution.

Not being able to rely on the hospitality of their hearers, "they will need to take along their own provisions, and the sword serves as a vivid symbol of the fact that they must now expect to encounter opposition." The disciples, however, betray their continuing obtuseness and incomprehension by mistaking a symbolic injunction for a literal instruction, saying in effect, "Look at how ready we are, Lord! We've already got two swords!" Despite Jesus' repeated warnings of the hardships to come, they still have no idea about the true nature of the costly program to which they've dedicated their lives. Jesus' reply is one of impatient dismissal: "Enough, already!" If they haven't gotten the point by now, further explanations by Jesus will make no difference. Jesus cuts them off abruptly, because the time grows short.

His first point is one I made above that I think Holding's article is giving as well. Moving along, why do you think Rando's second point doesn't hold water?


Since long before the Mosaic law, God even made the following pronouncement: "Whoever sheds the blood of man, by man shall his blood be shed -- For in the image of God has God made man." (Genesis 9:6). That was the Word of God, and Jesus is the Word of God incarnate. It stands to reason that Jesus would agree with such a principle.

I think Genesis 9:6 makes a good case that certain killings can be justified, but it makes me wonder why Cain wasn't allowed to be killed. I also wonder why 1st Samuel 8 seems to show that God wanted to fight Israel's battles for them, instead of a king conscripting armies for that purpose. After all, we know God did make some concessions to Israel that brought them to do things that were against His eternal moral character (divorce comes to mind). Finally, what are your thoughts on David not being allowed to build the Temple because he had shed too much blood in God's sight? Could this simply be referring to just David's immoral killings?

[Obsidian]

I don't think JP Holding's opinion is all that important, but even Holding admits that the weapon could be used to defend against robbers. Besides, the Bible makes it clear that Peter was able to slash off a guy's ear with it. (Presumably, Peter was bringing the sword down from above, and the guy dodged.) I agree that the teaching was mainly symbolic, considering that two swords would be insufficient to guard people who had split up. It wasn't a command that every believer purchase a sword, or that we focus on religious revolution or crusades. But swords only have one purpose, and if all violence were sinful as Daniel Keenan contends, then Jesus would be advocating sin. By the way, if you truly respect Holding, you might examine this post (http://www.tektonics.org/qt/revenge.html).

David was "a man after God's own heart." For the most part, his bloodshed was sinless. You do make a good point about his limited number of immoral killings, but the traditional view is simply that God wanted to be considered a god of peace rather than a god of war. Killing wasn't wrong -- failure to kill had been one reason Saul lost his annointing in 1 Samuel 15 -- but violence nonetheless cast a cloud over David's reign. On top of that, it probably generated a good bit of hostility among Jews, and might have detracted from the religion.

Cain received a divine pardon. It was for a specific purpose, part of which was that very few humans existed at the time. We can't use that one example to abolish the death penalty any more than we can use the Israelite experiences to universalize genocide.

God did fight Israel's battles for them, but they still (usually) suffered casualties (See Deuteronomy 20:5-9). If you read through Joshua and Judges, that much is pretty clear. There were a limited number of Samsons and such who were practically invincible, but they were the exception.

You mentioned divorce, but in certain circumstances, God actually commands that, too. See, e.g., Exodus 20:10-11. Jesus was condemning no-fault divorce, not divorce for any reason. (See Matthew 19:9 and also this article (http://www.tektonics.org/af/divorce2.html).) The Catholic Church has royally deceived Christians throughout history by inserting its own ascetic views about marriage into the Bible. They read Jesus's words, and instead of using them to clarify the understanding of the Mosaic Law (which Jesus was preaching about), all they do is turn Jesus's teachings into new rules! They use Jesus's words to forbid marriage in so many contexts -- for clergy, for monks, for rightfully divorced individuals. They pretend they are especially holy for following their new man-made rules. (But see Colossians 2:23).

In the same way, Gnostics and similar groups such as the Marcionites, Montanists (which Tertullian joined), Amish, and Quakers have inserted their ascetic doctrines into the Bible. They have turned Jesus's command to "love your enemies" into a new rule! They divorce teachings from the context, and they come up with impossible and impractical new rules that they think make them holy. In reality, pacifism makes them evil, just like the men who forbid marriage (Regarding marriage, see 1 Timothy 4:1-3; Deuteronomy 23:1; Leviticus 21:16-21; Genesis 2:18; Matthew 5:19). But they have seared consciences so they don't see it that way. Sincere pacifists would let their wife or their child get raped in front of their eyes, and think they were doing God a service. They are worse than Pharisees, and Jesus says they will be "least in the kingdom of heaven."

When we read Jesus's teachings, we shouldn't look for new rules. We should look for the true interpretation of the old rules -- as well as the fulfillment of the sacrificial and ceramonial system. In the case of REVENGE (not self-defense), the Pharisees had distorted the Mosaic Law. In clear contradiction of Leviticus 19:18, they had turned private revenge into a virtue. If you read Matthew 5:39, you can see that Jesus is referring to a strike on the "right cheek," or a backhanded slap. The Pharisees would say that God's justice requires you to avenge the insult and slap the aggressor back. But God actually forbade petty revenge in the Old Testament. Nonetheless, the same God who condemned revenge also commanded humans to execute justice in certain instances. Jesus was telling us to be patient and forgiving, but not to be stupid -- or anarchic.

Daniel Keenan earlier mentioned Lactantius, who began opposed to all killing but eventually learned better and switched his thinking. Lactantius stated things the following way:


They are deceived by no slight error who defame all censure, whether human or divine, with the name of bitterness and malice, thinking that He ought to be called injurious who visits the injurious with punishment. But if this is so, it follows that we have injurious laws, which enact punishment for offenders, and injurious judges who inflict capital punishments on those convicted of crime. But if the law is just which awards to the transgressor his due, and if the judge is called upright and good when he punishes crimes— for he guards the safety of good men who punishes the evil—it follows that God, when He opposes the evil, is not injurious; but he himself is injurious who either injures an innocent man, or spares an injurious person that he may injure many.

I would gladly ask from those who represent God as immoveable, if any one had property, a house, a household of slaves, and his slaves, despising the forbearance of their master, should attack all things, and themselves take the enjoyment of his goods, if his household should honour them, while the master was despised by all, insulted, and deserted: could he be a wise man who should not avenge the insults, but permit those over whom he had power to have the enjoyment of his property? Can such forbearance be found in any one? If, indeed, it is to be called forbearance, and not rather a kind of insensible stupor.

But it is easy to endure contempt. What if those things were done which are spoken of by Cicero? “For I ask, if any head of a family, when his children had been put to death by a slave, his wife slain and his house set on fire, should not exact most severe punishment from that slave, whether he would appear to be kind and merciful, or inhuman and most cruel?” But if to pardon deeds of this kind is the part of cruelty rather than of kindness, it is not therefore the part of goodness in God not to be moved at those things which are done unjustly. For the world is, as it were, the house of God, and men, as it were, His slaves

The New Testament isn't a law code or a canon of new rules. The only new rules are that we evangelize (but as Jonah illustrates, this wasn't entirely new), baptize, and commemorate the Crucifixion during communion. The New Testament is an anthology of corrections and a presentation of the gospel. It also focuses more on the individual and the inner heart, because it's written to individuals instead of kings or priests. But if you want to understand more completely how God thinks we should organize society, the Old Testament offers tremendous illustration.

[Augustine2004]

Why do people persist in thinking that there were no more than 2 swords? Isn't it possible that the 2 swords were newly acquired, and the disciples wanted to show Jesus them? "Enough!" may simply mean: "You now have enough swords, no need to get more."

[Sir Wilshire]

By the way, if you truly respect Holding, you might examine this post (http://www.tektonics.org/qt/revenge.html).
Yeah, I've seen that before. I agree with it. I think the only thing that could possibly support pacifism in the NT is the command to love your enemies. I think the rest are taken beyond their context (by early Christian pacifists and modern ones). However, I can see it as giving way in a moral hierarchy when an enemy attacks you or others with violence. It would it then be better to save innocent life than to keep loving the enemy. This is similar to Rahab's story where she is honored by the author of Hebrews essentially because she lied.


David was "a man after God's own heart." For the most part, his bloodshed was sinless. You do make a good point about his limited number of immoral killings, but the traditional view is simply that God wanted to be considered a god of peace rather than a god of war. Killing wasn't wrong -- failure to kill had been one reason Saul lost his annointing in 1 Samuel 15 -- but violence nonetheless cast a cloud over David's reign. On top of that, it probably generated a good bit of hostility among Jews, and might have detracted from the religion.
I can see this explanation working.


Cain received a divine pardon. It was for a specific purpose, part of which was that very few humans existed at the time. We can't use that one example to abolish the death penalty any more than we can use the Israelite experiences to universalize genocide.
As well as this. However, I wouldn't say anything ancient Israel did was genocide.


God did fight Israel's battles for them, but they still (usually) suffered casualties (See Deuteronomy 20:5-9). If you read through Joshua and Judges, that much is pretty clear. There were a limited number of Samsons and such who were practically invincible, but they were the exception.
I had thought of something similar to this too. God had already been using Israelites in armies before 1st Samuel 8, so it is more likely that what is meant by this passage is that Israel did not want to completely trust God. It wasn't really speaking about God's opinion of violence.


You mentioned divorce, but in certain circumstances, God actually commands that, too. See, e.g., Exodus 20:10-11. Jesus was condemning no-fault divorce, not divorce for any reason. (See Matthew 19:9 and also this article (http://www.tektonics.org/af/divorce2.html).)
Yeah, I know certain kinds of divorce are still allowed. Jesus was saying, though, that the OT allowed for something that wasn't what God really intended, but He made a concession because of Israel's hard heart.

[Daniel Keeran]

Daniel Keenan earlier mentioned Lactantius, who began opposed to all killing but eventually learned better and switched his thinking. Lactantius stated things the following way:



Lactantius represents the transition that occurred when Constantine reported his vision of the cross. People forgot his claim of a vision of Apollos earlier.

[Augustine2004]

Lactantius represents the transition that occurred when Constantine reported his vision of the cross. People forgot his claim of a vision of Apollos earlier.What is the point of that post that is relevant to this thread?

[Obsidian]

Yeah, I know certain kinds of divorce are still allowed. Jesus was saying, though, that the OT allowed for something that wasn't what God really intended, but He made a concession because of Israel's hard heart.

In Jesus's day, there was actually a debate over whether the OT allowed no-fault divorce. The debate between the two rabbinic schools centered over the phrase "something indecent" in Deuteronomy 24:1. The liberal school emphasized the word "something", and argued that you could divorce for any (or no) reason. In contrast, the conservatives emphasized that divorce may only be for indecency, or immorality. So I don't believe Jesus was changing OT law at all on that topic, only clarifying it. Many Christians believe that Jesus only mentioned an "adultery" exception, but his term "porneia" was more general and probably referred to indecency/immorality as a whole. Unfortunately, the Catholics grossly strayed from the truth on this issue and created ascetic rules about divorce -- probably because their priests couldn't marry anyway. The Eastern Orthodox, however, have always held a more accurate understanding of the doctrine.

I personally think that Jesus mentioned the Garden of Eden to show that in a perfect world, there would be no divorce. In a world with treachery, sexual immorality, desertion, etc. divorce is sometimes justifiable. Notice that Jesus didn't say, "Moses allowed divorce, but now I ban it." Instead, he went back to the Jewish scriptures and showed how even the OT supported his position.

I'm not arguing that Jesus only had authority to restate the Law. That would be silly. That would be like arguing that, in writing a textbook, an originalist constitutional scholar may only restate the words of the Constitution. It would be pointless. But I don't think Jesus had any authority to contradict the law. He could only expound upon pre-existing principles. Contradicting the Law would contradict himself (See John 8:58). The same Father who sent the Logos to Moses later sent that same Word in the form of Jesus.

If God started blatantly contradicting himself, I don't think I could believe in him.

And because Jesus was merely expounding on an existing law code rather than establishing a new law code, I think it's foolish for Christians to take even his most vague sayings and turn them into new rules. He wasn't trying to come up with new rules. He was trying to explain the old rules. That's why he focused on principles and states of mind -- and often exaggerated (See Matthew 18:9). When he said, "Don't swear," he wasn't eliminating the court system or calling oaths evil. He was emphasizing complete honesty, based on Leviticus 19:11. Jesus wanted to reinforce the principles behind the Law, principles which people were ignoring.

[Daniel Keeran]

What is the point of that post that is relevant to this thread?

Obsidian was saying Lactantius advocated a Christian army. This occured after Constantine claimed his vision of the cross and baptized his soldiers. Lactantius, apart from his laxity, was deceived by Constantine who earlier also claimed he had a vision of Apollo. Lactantius set the precedent for Christian approval of their bearing arms which Augustine later stated in his just war doctrine.

[Obsidian]

It sounds like you are the one who is deceived. Your belief clearly violates biblical doctrine. You can expound on these conspiracy theories all you want, but if the Bible doesn't support your position, you are merely building a house of straw.

Gnosticism isn't making a come-back. Get off the bandwagon while you still can.

[Sir Wilshire]

I'm trying to remember some verses in the OT that justify self-defense. One of them is this.

If a thief is caught in the act of breaking into a house and is struck and killed in the process, the person who killed the thief is not guilty of murder.
Anyone know of some others?

[Obsidian]

There's also the part where the rape victim is expected to cry out for help, which refers to defense of a third party. And of course, Jacob wrestled with God.

But overall, I think Genesis 9:6 provides the clearest picture of the issue when it says, "Whoever sheds the blood of man, by man shall his blood be shed -- For in the image of God has God made man." God spoke those words to all humanity, not just the Jews. And in a single verse, it plainly shows that God generally disapproves of violence, but that he doesn't consider all violence sinful.

But in response to the critics who suggest that the NT should give us examples of personal self-defense, I ask, "Why?" Even the Old Testament gives us very few examples of self-defense. Throughout history, the use of force has always been confined largely to governments, who maintain professional warriors to uphold morality. Most of the OT violence comes in the form of 1) executions or 2) war.

Even the Jews didn't fight back when the pharaoh tried to kill baby Moses. Why not? Because they would've lost. When the government tried to feed Daniel to lions, did he grab a spear and try to take down the empire single-handedly? Even in Esther, the Jews only defended themselves after Esther and the emperor sided with them and gave them permission to take up arms. People in ancient societies had a strong preference for order, and generally if 90% of the people wanted to kill you, they assumed that resistance was pointless.

In ancient societies, defense against criminals was assumed, and defense against persecution was impractical. Even today, defense against persecution is largely impractical -- and that's despite the existence of automatic weapons. Back in the day where Roman soldiers weighed 200 lbs and wore armor, and when all you had (at best) was a sword, what exactly could you do?

[Augustine2004]

Try to sell one's life dear?

[mwavenger]

Hi lads, I more of a 'hesitant' pacifist, as it scares me to think that I am not allowed to use violent force to, for example, protect my family. And I grew up with my dad being in war, and on all the OT heroes, like Samson, David, Gideon, Abraham etc. But I haven’t found any real arguments that have made me think that Jesus may have not taught total non violence for His disciples. And the more I read JH Yoder, the more I think/realise that He did teach that. With that in mind, I am trying to be faithful to Christ’s command, realising that disobedience is sin, as well as following ‘the lesser of two evils’ (as per classical Just War theory).


I'm trying to remember some verses in the OT that justify self-defense. One of them is this.
Exodus 22:2 (NLT)
If a thief is caught in the act of breaking into a house and is struck and killed in the process, the person who killed the thief is not guilty of murder.
________________________________________
© source where applicable

Anyone know of some others?

Firstly, it must be read into verse 3.
Exodus 22:2-3 (New International Version) 2 "If a thief is caught breaking in and is struck so that he dies, the defender is not guilty of bloodshed; 3 but if it happens [a] after sunrise, he is guilty of bloodshed. A thief must certainly make restitution, but if he has nothing, he must be sold to pay for his theft."

The problem with that passage is it says that if you use lethal self defence you are guilty of murder and must be punished with death. An exception arises only at night, and the owner who uses lethal self defence will not be executed under those circumstances. The owner is actually given a concession (the benefit of the doubt) when/if the slaying occurs under darkness.

Furthermore, you would still have to trump Jesus commands to love your enemies, follow the path of Christ by sacrificing your life for another (which was the epitome of love), His rebuke to Peter’s violent defence in the garden, and turning the other check when violently assaulted rather than seeking to violently defend oneself personally or through the judicial system (lex talonis) which He quotes then forbids His disciples from using. So it doesn’t appear to me to apply, especially in light of the New Covenant.



Also, if you can argue that Peter used a sword (even though he was chastised by Christ for doing so) why cant Christians do the same, then why not argue that “Peter also denied Christ thrice, therefore we should be able to do so nowadays if our life is in danger” – of course, no martyr did such thing.

Peter misunderstood that Jesus was not talking about self defence at the last supper, but was giving them “a striking way of saying that enemies upon every side will assail them.”- PNT. I don’t know of any serious commentator that thought otherwise for Luke 22:36 (pacifists or not). Also, if violence was allowed by Christ, then Peter should have killed Ananias, with Sapphira for they were guilty of sin against the Holy Spirit and worthy of immediate death. Instead Peter left vengeance to the Lord, “He will repay”.



In Jesus's day, there was actually a debate over whether the OT allowed no-fault divorce. The debate between the two rabbinic schools centered over the phrase "something indecent" in Deuteronomy 24:1. The liberal school emphasized the word "something", and argued that you could divorce for any (or no) reason. In contrast, the conservatives emphasized that divorce may only be for indecency, or immorality. So I don't believe Jesus was changing OT law at all on that topic, only clarifying it. Many Christians believe that Jesus only mentioned an "adultery" exception, but his term "porneia" was more general and probably referred to indecency/immorality as a whole. Unfortunately, the Catholics grossly strayed from the truth on this issue and created ascetic rules about divorce -- probably because their priests couldn't marry anyway. The Eastern Orthodox, however, have always held a more accurate understanding of the doctrine.

I believe Jesus went beyond and higher than the 2 main schools of thought here (Shammiel/Hilliel sp?), as noted from the reaction of the disciples. My understanding of the word “porneia” (as it was used to mean ‘incest’ in this instance, as per used in Leviticus 18 LXX and what St Paul wrote about in 1Cor 5:1). So incest is the only provision Christ makes for someone to be divorced with the right of remarriage assumed (as I would think that this type of marriage wouldn’t be binding/lawful at all anyways), and is mentioned by Matthew this way to clarify the teaching to (I assume) the expanding gentile community. The way I personally see it now is that I am married, and my wife will be my wife until death, in the same way that I cannot be ‘divorced’ from my sister (I mean in a sibling relationship) for instance. But anyway, I find it sad that people today can’t even follow your broader interpretation let alone mine (the teachings of church I grew up in is broader still, and yet it is rarely followed too)… but I digress.


I personally think that Jesus mentioned the Garden of Eden to show that in a perfect world, there would be no divorce. In a world with treachery, sexual immorality, desertion, etc. divorce is sometimes justifiable. Notice that Jesus didn't say, "Moses allowed divorce, but now I ban it." Instead, he went back to the Jewish scriptures and showed how even the OT supported his position.

“Mat 19:8-9 He said to them, Because of your hard-heartedness Moses allowed you to put away your wives; but from the beginning it was not so. But I say unto you…” He showed that the concession Moses gave was not the perfect ideal of Jesus/God. So in a way, He is saying that Moses did tolerate them due to their stubbornness, but here is what “I say”.


I'm not arguing that Jesus only had authority to restate the Law. That would be silly. That would be like arguing that, in writing a textbook, an originalist constitutional scholar may only restate the words of the Constitution. It would be pointless. But I don't think Jesus had any authority to contradict the law. He could only expound upon pre-existing principles. Contradicting the Law would contradict himself (See John 8:58). The same Father who sent the Logos to Moses later sent that same Word in the form of Jesus.

If God started blatantly contradicting himself, I don't think I could believe in him.

But if Jesus instructs us on the true way of life as intended for humanity right for the start, then any concessions afforded by Moses (due to their hard-heartedness), does not imply a contradiction… just a perfection/restoration to the higher ideals. I consider Jesus the light in which all scripture is understood, the supreme interpreter of scripture and teacher. So are you saying that before you can accept that Jesus has taught non violence, that you would renounce Him outright? We know God is immutable, but the way He relates to His creation has changed (or better yet, the way we understand and follow Him).



And because Jesus was merely expounding on an existing law code rather than establishing a new law code, I think it's foolish for Christians to take even his most vague sayings and turn them into new rules. He wasn't trying to come up with new rules. He was trying to explain the old rules. That's why he focused on principles and states of mind -- and often exaggerated (See Matthew 18:9). When he said, "Don't swear," he wasn't eliminating the court system or calling oaths evil. He was emphasizing complete honesty, based on Leviticus 19:11. Jesus wanted to reinforce the principles behind the Law, principles which people were ignoring.

Jesus went well beyond the ‘old rules’, so in a way it is new rules/commands. In regards to oaths, Jesus said “Don’t swear holos”, where holos impies “commonly”. So it pretty much means, don’t swear commonly (which I thought is interesting). And as you said, he was emphasizing complete honesty, meaning Christians are bound to be honest everyday.



There's also the part where the rape victim is expected to cry out for help, which refers to defense of a third party. And of course, Jacob wrestled with God.

I can pull a rapist off the victim and use non violent techniques to stall them, till the victim flees, or sacrifice myself if necessary. And do you seriously intend to appeal to Jacob to allow for violent defence? You do realise that he married sisters Rachel and Leah, which was tolerated pre-Mosaic Law but not after [Lev 18:18]. Does that mean we can do the same now, or could we do the same during the Old Covenant? Or can Christians today marry more than 1 woman at once, or sleep with concubines like Jacob and Abraham did respectively? Of course not.


But overall, I think Genesis 9:6 provides the clearest picture of the issue when it says, "Whoever sheds the blood of man, by man shall his blood be shed -- For in the image of God has God made man." God spoke those words to all humanity, not just the Jews. And in a single verse, it plainly shows that God generally disapproves of violence, but that he doesn't consider all violence sinful.

Before Genesis 9:3 only veges were eaten. So God now allowed eating meat, which was a first as well. Another point to that change of rules was that Noah was not allowed to eat blood or ‘life’ (which was further commanded under Mosaic law). So I have to ask you, are all things through Christ now permissible to eat (including shellfish, swine), or do you eat kosher? Mat 15:11, Act 10:14. With that in mind, I see the concession/authority granted in Genesis 9:6 is superseded by what Jesus’ commands His disciples under the New Covenant.



But in response to the critics who suggest that the NT should give us examples of personal self-defense, I ask, "Why?" Even the Old Testament gives us very few examples of self-defense. Throughout history, the use of force has always been confined largely to governments, who maintain professional warriors to uphold morality. Most of the OT violence comes in the form of 1) executions or 2) war.

Because Jesus instructs His disciples NOT to use violence, even in self defence, that’s why. The only reason you cannot site NT examples is because there aren’t any in your favour. All of the NT violence comes from OTHER people attacking Christians (or the use of apocalyptic genre). The only exception is Peter in the garden who was vigorously rebuked by Christ Himself, and from that date on, he never uses violence against another human at all. He learnt his lesson the hard way.

The executions and holy wars were ordained by YHWH Himself and Israel carried it out as an agent of the only true and wise God who knows when judgement/sacrifice/herem (ban) is required – not ‘Just wars’. Jesus has specifically taught His followers that we can no longer do this (personally nor corporately), but to leave vengeance for the Lord to deal with. I could say that I do follow Just War thinking, but I only recognise Jesus as the only authority that could command His followers to war… so its effectively pacifism either way for me :)



Even the Jews didn't fight back when the pharaoh tried to kill baby Moses. Why not? Because they would've lost. When the government tried to feed Daniel to lions, did he grab a spear and try to take down the empire single-handedly? Even in Esther, the Jews only defended themselves after Esther and the emperor sided with them and gave them permission to take up arms. People in ancient societies had a strong preference for order, and generally if 90% of the people wanted to kill you, they assumed that resistance was pointless.

In ancient societies, defense against criminals was assumed, and defense against persecution was impractical. Even today, defense against persecution is largely impractical -- and that's despite the existence of automatic weapons. Back in the day where Roman soldiers weighed 200 lbs and wore armor, and when all you had (at best) was a sword, what exactly could you do?


In the OT, YHWH is the warrior hero. It was because of Him that Israel won, and not for any other reason. I recall Samson effectively taking on Philistine with a measure of success (in the end). Out of curiosity, did they honestly use that percentage, or is that your own estimation.

If Jesus commanded His followers to a holy war then we will win, because the Lord fights for us/ahead of us. Nothing can stand in His way, not even 185000 Assyrians. But the Christians did exactly what the Messiah instructed at that time, and the blood of martyrs brought the world to her knees (note that the meaning of this word is ‘to witness’ but due to the high death rate of those preaching the gospel by the anti-Christians, that the word became synonymous with death).


Cheers.

[Obsidian]

I'm hearing the same arguments over and over again.

Rest at ease, mwavenger, and listen to my enlightening words: Put simply, you have a warped view of the Old Testament. You've suggested that God's two great commands (Love God and Love your neighbor) somehow changed between the times when Moses taught and when Jesus taught. That isn't what Jesus said at all (See Matthew 5:19). It is heresy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marcionism).

Jesus's "command" to love your enemies isn't some new rule that he only later brought down. No, his teachings were merely the proper interpretation of the original rule. (See Leviticus 18:19; Exodus 23:4-5). That said, Jesus was still the PERFECT JEW, and every word out of his mouth must be interpreted in light of the Jewish law.

The "turn the other cheek" passage clearly refers to a backhanded slap because it uses the words "on your right cheek." A righthanded person hitting your right cheek would be using the back of his hand. In Ancient Judea, they considered a backhanded slap twice as insulting as a fronthanded slap.

When you try to divorce Jesus from the OT, you ultimately delve into gnostic paganism. You ignore the material realities of the world, the goodness of material things, and you condemn what God has declared good (See 1 Timothy 4:1-3; Colossians 2:23). Whereas God said that human life is precious and should be protected, Gnostics said, "Nah, all material is evil...and Besides, the OT God was a lesser god, anyway." Gnostics say that Jesus isn't the God of the OT, and it seems that you yourself hardly believe he is. Either that, or you think God is just schizophrenic and constantly changing his mind.




Because Jesus instructs His disciples NOT to use violence, even in self defence, that’s why. The only reason you cannot site NT examples is because there aren’t any in your favour.

*Sigh* Since you're so brilliant, why don't you give me some examples of personal self-defense in the OT. And only human-on-human battles count; I already thought of the Jacob wrestling match.

And I'm certainly not advocating anarchy or vigilanteism. It's plainly idiotic to claim that Peter should have killed Ananias for lying.




So in a way, He is saying that Moses did tolerate them due to their stubbornness, but here is what “I say”.

NO! He said, "in the beginning" there was no divorce. But in the beginning there was no sin, either! The original intent of marriage is permanence, but that may be ended. The Bible actually commands divorce in certain circumstances (See, e.g., Exodus 21:10-11). The Word of God does not change.

Gnostics forbade marriage as well. If we didn't allow divorce, I would support the death penalty for adulterers. But there is no need for that.

And, for the record, your interpretation of the divorce passage is entirely novel. Everyone in church history believed that "porneia" referred to sexual sin, or perhaps some additional type of immorality. I'm not one to appeal to tradition, but this time I have logic, tradition, and history (The Hillelite/Shammaite debate) on my side.

[Obsidian]

If we took your (gnostic) theories to their logical conclusion, there would be no government, and unchecked murder and adultery would run rampant across the earth. If you really think that is what God's law commands, your conscience is deeply seared.

You might say, "Well God would stop that from happening." Funny, that's exactly what the devil said to Jesus after he told him to jump off a cliff. God told man to fill the earth and subdue it, and in some cases, he commands mankind to enforce his laws.

John Yoder will eventually receive discipline from God for teaching his gnostic heresies. He will be among the "least in the kingdom of heaven" (Matthew 5:19).

[Daniel Keeran]

Even today, defense against persecution is largely impractical -- and that's despite the existence of automatic weapons. Back in the day where Roman soldiers weighed 200 lbs and wore armor, and when all you had (at best) was a sword, what exactly could you do?

As someone pointed out, there are plenty of examples of minorities, e.g. the Jews, in the New Testament using violence, so why not the persecuted Christians especially if they thought Jesus' telling disciples to buy swords and Peter using a sword gave them permission? E.g. Stephen was going to die anyway. Why not go out fighting with a nice big sword blazing?

[Augustine2004]

As someone pointed out, there are plenty of examples of minorities, e.g. the Jews, in the New Testament using violence, so why not the persecuted Christians especially if they thought Jesus' telling disciples to buy swords and Peter using a sword gave them permission? E.g. Stephen was going to die anyway. Why not go out fighting with a nice big sword blazing?How do you know Stephen didn't try to defend himself? A big stone can hit you in the back and knock you to the ground within a second, so maybe Stephen never had a chance to conduct an effective defense.

[Sir Wilshire]

Firstly, it must be read into verse 3.
Exodus 22:2-3 (New International Version) 2 "If a thief is caught breaking in and is struck so that he dies, the defender is not guilty of bloodshed; 3 but if it happens [a] after sunrise, he is guilty of bloodshed. A thief must certainly make restitution, but if he has nothing, he must be sold to pay for his theft."

The problem with that passage is it says that if you use lethal self defence you are guilty of murder and must be punished with death. An exception arises only at night, and the owner who uses lethal self defence will not be executed under those circumstances. The owner is actually given a concession (the benefit of the doubt) when/if the slaying occurs under darkness.
It isn't a concession. It's murder during daylight because it is very unlikely lethal force would be necessary to subdue the thief (neighbors could come help). At night, it would be pitch black, the homeowner would have no way of judging the intruder's intent (homicide or robbery), and it's less likely neighbors could come help. This does show that violence can be used to defend oneself or others (although not lethally in most circumstances). I would also say violence should only be used in either situation as a last resort.


Furthermore, you would still have to trump Jesus commands to love your enemies, follow the path of Christ by sacrificing your life for another (which was the epitome of love),
Which command wins out when violence is the only thing that will allow you to save your friends or family? You can't love both in this kind of situation with either violence or non-violence.

His rebuke to Peter’s violent defence in the garden,
Peter was using his sword to defend another. So this passage can't speak to the morality of self-defense. It can't even speak to the morality of defense of others because Jesus rebuked Peter for hindering the atonement. The immediate context of what was going on doesn't allow Jesus' comment to speak about violent defense of others.

and turning the other check when violently assaulted rather than seeking to violently defend oneself personally or through the judicial system (lex talonis) which He quotes then forbids His disciples from using. So it doesn’t appear to me to apply, especially in light of the New Covenant.
Um, being slapped on the cheek was an insult situation, not a fighting situation. People were taking a law that was only to be applied in the courts and applying it to personal insult situations. Jesus is criticizing them for taking Scripture out of context, not saying self-defense shouldn't be practiced.


I can pull a rapist off the victim and use non violent techniques to stall them, till the victim flees, or sacrifice myself if necessary.
Yes, and this should be done if violence isn't necessary to save a victim. But sometimes things come to a point where you can only uphold one of the love commands (neighbor or enemy). Which do you think is right uphold in this situation?


Before Genesis 9:3 only veges were eaten. So God now allowed eating meat, which was a first as well. Another point to that change of rules was that Noah was not allowed to eat blood or ‘life’ (which was further commanded under Mosaic law). So I have to ask you, are all things through Christ now permissible to eat (including shellfish, swine), or do you eat kosher? Mat 15:11, Act 10:14. With that in mind, I see the concession/authority granted in Genesis 9:6 is superseded by what Jesus’ commands His disciples under the New Covenant.
How exactly is Genesis 9:6 superseded? It's seems pretty plain that God says executions of murders isn't immoral. This is based on God's image. I don't see why certain moral killings would later become immoral when they were originally based on the image of the immutable God being attacked.

[Obsidian]

I apparently missed your comment about vegetarians in the Garden of Eden. My answer is that any ruler (God inluded) can establish different ordinances for different circumstances, but if you're going to repeal a law, you had better make it crystal clear. And if you're Jesus, the sacrificial lamb, you are morally obligated to obey every Jewish law down to the smallest iota -- and to teach everyone else to do likewise. Jesus said so himself in Matthew 5:18.

And furthermore, what circumstances have changed since Genesis 9:6? Murderers still exist. If murderers still exist, and God never clearly says, "Wait a minute, guys; I'm changing the rules now," then I think you have to assume the rules are the same.

And of course I don't only eat Jewish foods. The whole purpose of that ordinance was to separate Jews from gentiles. The NT expressly declares that rule ceramonial and obsolete (Acts 10:15; Colossians 2:21-23). But I'll tell you what: Jesus only ate kosher foods. And if Jesus had eaten unclean foods or commanded others to do so, he wouldn't be the Messiah. Jesus obeyed the Jewish laws, and none of his teachings contradicted them. So if you want evidence that God considered moral laws only temporary, you need to look in the teachings of Paul or the Apostles.

Overall, the NT makes it clear that ceramonial laws applied only temporarily, and even the OT makes it clear that they applied mainly to Jews. We're not Jews. But Genesis 9:6 isn't a ceramonial law, and it applied to all humanity. Furthermore, I think we should honestly look into the moral principle behind every OT verse to make sure we aren't misunderstanding God's character. If we can't find a good reason to disregard an OT rule (as we do with animal sacrifices, food restrictions, religious holidays.), we should try to uphold it.


E.g. Stephen was going to die anyway. Why not go out fighting with a nice big sword blazing?

First, he didn't have a sword, and second, the better question is Why go out ablazing'? If you're certain to die, I think it's more respectable to die with dignity. It lends more honor to your message. You don't see many death row inmates trying to wrestle the guns from prison guards. It's the same principle. (And that said, I agree with Augustine that Stephan was grabbed by a mob and probably had no chance to defend himself anyway.)

If you've got a chance of defending yourself, however, like Tiradates III (of Armenia) or Constantine, then hell yes you had better defend yourself. Otherwise you are allowing a criminal to roam society freely, and allowing Satan to impose himself on God's kingdom.

Peter was wrong to defend Jesus because God wanted Jesus dead, pure and simple. Jesus himself stated so on two occasions (Matthew 16:21-23; John 18:11).


And regarding the Jewish minority rebellion...First of all, it's not clearly described in the NT. Second, the Jews got crushed and destroyed. Third, the only reason the Jews rebelled was because they thought God was still on their side -- but he wasn't. Most normal people would have realized that rebellion against the Roman Empire was a stupid idea. (Technically, I think the Jewish revolt may have been justified as a revolt against tyranny, but it was still foolhardy, and God used the situation to destroy their nation once and for all. Ultimately, it was a revolt against God, who wanted to punish his adulterous people. See Daniel 9:26.)

[mwavenger]

Rest at ease, mwavenger, and listen to my enlightening words: Put simply, you have a warped view of the Old Testament. You've suggested that God's two great commands (Love God and Love your neighbor) somehow changed between the times when Moses taught and when Jesus taught. That isn't what Jesus said at all (See Matthew 5:19). It is heresy.

Jesus's "command" to love your enemies isn't some new rule that he only later brought down. No, his teachings were merely the proper interpretation of the original rule. (See Leviticus 18:19; Exodus 23:4-5). That said, Jesus was still the PERFECT JEW, and every word out of his mouth must be interpreted in light of the Jewish law.
I’d do not trust your ‘enlightened’ words, and it appears you’re the closet Gnostic with your special enlightened knowledge. Oh wow, it’s so easy to falsely malign someone without proof, isn’t it?

Christians are no longer required to keep an obsolete law, in the light of Jesus’ atonement, and we being justified by faith. Of the commandments listed in Exodus 20:1-17, the Sabbath was not reinstituted. Does that mean God’s command changed from the times when Moses taught and when Jesus taught?

At no time do I suggest that the OT God is different in any way to the NT. I believe that Christians are a continuation of the true Israel, and I don’t deny our heritage at all. What I am saying is that the Mosaic covenant has passed, and we are now living in the NEW Covenant, get it, NEW (Heb 8)? So that eliminates me from being Gnostic, and reveals you to be either a liar, or just mistakenly ignorant.

The "turn the other cheek" passage clearly refers to a backhanded slap because it uses the words "on your right cheek." A righthanded person hitting your right cheek would be using the back of his hand. In Ancient Judea, they considered a backhanded slap twice as insulting as a fronthanded slap.

To be slapped in the face as an insult, is still a violent act anyways. This was no ‘love tap’. Furthermore, the disciples where then forbidden from using the judicial avenue to met out society’s organized justice system (lex talonis).


When you try to divorce Jesus from the OT, you ultimately delve into gnostic paganism. You ignore the material realities of the world, the goodness of material things, and you condemn what God has declared good (See 1 Timothy 4:1-3; Colossians 2:23). Whereas God said that human life is precious and should be protected, Gnostics said, "Nah, all material is evil...and Besides, the OT God was a lesser god, anyway." Gnostics say that Jesus isn't the God of the OT, and it seems that you yourself hardly believe he is. Either that, or you think God is just schizophrenic and constantly changing his mind.
If 1Tim 4:2 applies to anyone mate, its you. But way to go on this out of context tangent. These verses do not apply here, but maybe Col 2-19:23 applies to you… the Just War Theory, is a doctrine/command of men, not of the Messiah. The OT Israel was commanded to make holy wars, not according to some ‘Just War’ understanding.

Jesus is God the Son, and I even indicated that I believed that He (pre incarnate) killed the Assyrians in the OT. I know the covenant (Heb 8) has changed, but you want to be a legalistic Pharisee and keep the old covenant commands which have faded away in the light of the Christ. I also believe Gen 1:31 so you’re assumptions about me are blatant lies. Is the only way to defend your weak position is to misdirect and falsely slander?

You know, all you had to say was “No sorry, I don’t have any evidence to support my opinion that after the resurrection, the disciples used violence, nor do I have any evidence that Jesus in the NT used/taught violence at all. But what I do have is sloppy exegesis to support my opinions… does that count?” instead of going on this easter egg hunt.


*Sigh* Since you're so brilliant, why don't you give me some examples of personal self-defense in the OT. And only human-on-human battles count; I already thought of the Jacob wrestling match.
I only need to show that Jesus taught non violence in the NT to prove what is commanded under the NEW covenant.

So again, you can’t find any in the NT can you? That’s a shame. Since you’re trying to abdicate Jesus commands of non violence, it is YOU that has to prove it under the teachings of the new covenant. And as I said, we don’t marry sisters nor are we polygamous like Jacob was either, under the new covenant.


NO! He said, "in the beginning" there was no divorce. But in the beginning there was no sin, either! The original intent of marriage is permanence, but that may be ended. The Bible actually commands divorce in certain circumstances (See, e.g., Exodus 21:10-11). The Word of God does not change.
No, in Mat 19:9 He said ‘And I say to you”! He goes on to expound and brings His teaching higher than before, to its original intention. Polygamy was tolerated in the Law, but now and in light of Jesus Christ it is forbidden for the disciple’s of Christ to commit polygamy. Does the change between covenants upset you here too? Heb 8:7



If we took your (gnostic) theories to their logical conclusion, there would be no government, and unchecked murder and adultery would run rampant across the earth. If you really think that is what God's law commands, your conscience is deeply seared. You might say, "Well God would stop that from happening." Funny, that's exactly what the devil said to Jesus after he told him to jump off a cliff. God told man to fill the earth and subdue it, and in some cases, he commands mankind to enforce his laws. John Yoder will eventually receive discipline from God for teaching his gnostic heresies. He will be among the "least in the kingdom of heaven" (Matthew 5:19).
Boo hoo, your silly claim that I am a gnostic just shows how ignorant and unjustified you are. The non violence commanded by Jesus ONLY applies to His disciples, we are to preach the gospel first. God uses (and did in the NT times, and with Assyria etc) pagan/non-Christian governments to carry out His vengeance at times, and in the OT He used His people to carry out His judgment/ban (which is now revoked for His people, the Christians).

Murder and adultery still happened REGARDLESS of governments… look at the killed Christians in the NT, and now, as well as how adultery is rampant and unchecked in our world nowadays… sheesh. And can you read my mind to inform me that my ‘conscience is deeply seared’?

Since Yoder did not teach “Gnostic heresies”, then there is no requirement for Godly discipline. Too bad YOU are not the one to judge who will be least in the kingdom…. Seriously, are you a troll?


I apparently missed your comment about vegetarians in the Garden of Eden. My answer is that any ruler (God inluded) can establish different ordinances for different circumstances, but if you're going to repeal a law, you had better make it crystal clear. And if you're Jesus, the sacrificial lamb, you are morally obligated to obey every Jewish law down to the smallest iota -- and to teach everyone else to do likewise. Jesus said so himself in Matthew 5:18.

Like the Sabbath?



And furthermore, what circumstances have changed since Genesis 9:6? Murderers still exist. If murderers still exist, and God never clearly says, "Wait a minute, guys; I'm changing the rules now," then I think you have to assume the rules are the same.

Cain killed pre- Gen9:6, and then a change in the way we are allowed to deal with it happened post flood. Then Mosaic Law came to us, with its provisions of God sanctioned killings. Then the Christ event happened, were we are commanded not to use violence personally/corporately.


The NT expressly declares that rule ceramonial and obsolete (Acts 10:15; Colossians 2:21-23).

And Hebrews 8 declares expressly, that the old covenant is obsolete, and tells us that the new covenant is different to the old. Read verse 7-13 in particular. And Jesus had to fulfil the Law completely as part of His Messianic mission. If He comes back today, do you think He will still eat kosher?


Overall, the NT makes it clear that ceramonial laws applied only temporarily, and even the OT makes it clear that they applied mainly to Jews. We're not Jews. But Genesis 9:6 isn't a ceramonial law, and it applied to all humanity.
Gen 9:4 was before Mosaic ceremonial law, and applied to the whole of humanity as well. Is YOUR conscience is seared cause you broke the ruling on blood?

First, he didn't have a sword, and second, the better question is Why go out ablazing'? If you're certain to die, I think it's more respectable to die with dignity. It lends more honor to your message. You don't see many death row inmates trying to wrestle the guns from prison guards. It's the same principle. (And that said, I agree with Augustine that Stephan was grabbed by a mob and probably had no chance to defend himself anyway.)
Wait, he didn’t have a sword!? But didn’t you think Jesus commanded His disciples to ‘buy a sword’? Maybe Stephen missed the memo on that one, or your exegesis is wrong.

And these criminals DID roam free after executing Stephen. Under your view, Paul (Saul) should also be punished alongside with the mob for aiding and abetting the killing (and even according to his own view in Romans 1:32).

Peter was wrong to defend Jesus because
Because of the violence Peter used, and Jesus remarked “Put up your sword into the sheath” and “Put up your sword again into its place; for all who take the sword shall perish with a sword.”. He didn’t rebuke Peter at this point for trying to stop the arrest/kidnapping – because it was inevitable that Peter would be overwhelmed without the legions of angels. Instead Jesus issues His rebuke toward the violent act itself, and goes on to restore/heal the violence!

And as evidence from the scriptures, Peter never used a sword, nor violence, against another human being since.


the only reason the Jews rebelled was because they thought God was still on their side
And you make the same mistake the Zealots made when you reject the non violent teachings of Jesus, and presume Jesus is on your side when you fight violently (as opposed to spiritually).

So are you going to prove to me that Jesus taught/used violence under the new covenant, or that the apostles/disciples in the NT used/taught violence (post- Christ’ Resurrection) or do you want to beat about the bush some more? Because this game of hopscotch is getting tiresome mate.





How do you know Stephen didn't try to defend himself? A big stone can hit you in the back and knock you to the ground within a second, so maybe Stephen never had a chance to conduct an effective defense.
You want to argue from silence? The bible said he didn’t use violence. It also notes that he saw Jesus (Act 7:55), so why didn’t he cry out to Jesus for divine vengeance towards the mob? Because his Master, our Master, taught otherwise.


It isn't a concession. It's murder during daylight because it is very unlikely lethal force would be necessary to subdue the thief (neighbors could come help). At night, it would be pitch black, the homeowner would have no way of judging the intruder's intent (homicide or robbery), and it's less likely neighbors could come help. This does show that violence can be used to defend oneself or others (although not lethally in most circumstances). I would also say violence should only be used in either situation as a last resort.
You assume that neighbours will help, but that is only your opinion and you are merely trying to inject it into the text. The fact remains that if you kill a robber during daylight, your guilty of murder, but at night you are given the concession/benefit of the doubt. You can’t say it “isn’t a concession” then go on to say why you think the concession applied at night time. You just disagreed then agreed with me in the second sentence.




Which command wins out when violence is the only thing that will allow you to save your friends or family? You can't love both in this kind of situation with either violence or non-violence.

Jesus sacrifice on the cross is the only thing that will save my family and friends, not my violence. You can love both while acting in complete non violence. Jesus said in John 15:13 No one has greater love than this, that a man lay down his life for his friends. Being willing to sacrifice your life is what Jesus referred to as greater love. Not by using violence, which are against His commands.



Peter was using his sword to defend another. So this passage can't speak to the morality of self-defense. It can't even speak to the morality of defense of others because Jesus rebuked Peter for hindering the atonement. The immediate context of what was going on doesn't allow Jesus' comment to speak about violent defense of others. .

Pete hindered Jesus before and was told to ‘get behind me satan’. This time, he used violence to defend the only good person born into this world, and was rebuked for using violence, not for the hindrance. The context of the attack and rebuke shows the commitment Jesus had to His teaching of non violence.



Um, being slapped on the cheek was an insult situation, not a fighting situation. People were taking a law that was only to be applied in the courts and applying it to personal insult situations. Jesus is criticizing them for taking Scripture out of context, not saying self-defense shouldn't be practiced.

Jesus quotes Lex talonis in verse 38, which is an OT judicial law (confirmed again in verse 40), and then goes on to forbid His disciples from using it. There is NO qualifier here that supports your (mis)interpretation.

To quote John Cecil Cadoux, The Early Christian Attitude to War [1919]


A less shallow misinterpretation argues that Jesus meant this teaching to govern only the personal feelings and acts of the disciple in his purely private capacity, and left untouched his duty—as a member of society and for the sake of social welfare—to participate in the authoritative and official restraint and punishment of wrongdoers.3 Whether or no this interpretation be sound ethical teaching for the present day, the idea that it represents the meaning of Jesus cannot be allowed to pass unchallenged. For in this very passage, Jesus exhibits society’s authorized court of justice, not as duly punishing the offender whom the injured disciple has lovingly pardoned and then handed over to its jurisdiction, but as itself committing the wrong that has to be borne : “if anyone wishes to go to law with thee, and take away thy tunic,” and so on. But further than that, the Lex Talionis—that ancient Mosaic law requiring, in a case of strife between two men resulting in injury to one of them, “life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, burning for burning, wound for wound, stripe for stripe”1 —was no mere authorization of private revenge, permitting within certain limits the indulgence of personal resentment, but a public measure designed in the interests of society as a restraint upon wrongdoing, and doubtless meant to be carried out by (or under the supervision of) the public officers of the community. Yet this law Jesus quotes for the sole purpose of forbidding his disciples to apply it. We are therefore driven to the conclusion that he regarded the duty of neighbourly love as excluding the infliction of public penalties on behalf of society, as well as the indulgence of personal resentment.2




How exactly is Genesis 9:6 superseded? It's seems pretty plain that God says executions of murders isn't immoral. This is based on God's image. I don't see why certain moral killings would later become immoral when they were originally based on the image of the immutable God being attacked.

It becomes immoral if God no longer gives His people authority to carry out the executions/war. Jesus tells His followers not to kill, therefore it is immoral to disobey. Just remember, this teaching is for those who choose to follow Him, not for the infidels (like pagan Rome/Assyria). The obsolete old covenant cannot be used to circumvent the commands of the Christ, our supreme teacher, in the light of the new covenant.



Again, all I am asking is for evidence to prove that Jesus taught/used violence under the new covenant precepts, or that the apostles/disciples in the NT used/taught violence (post- Christ’ Resurrection).

PS: I am sorry about this lengthy post.

Cheers.

[Augustine2004]

You appear to think that Jesus didn't know Peter was wearing a sword, until the servant-ear incident.

[Sir Wilshire]

You assume that neighbours will help, but that is only your opinion and you are merely trying to inject it into the text.
I didn't assume they would help. I said they could come help, not that they would.

The fact remains that if you kill a robber during daylight, your guilty of murder, but at night you are given the concession/benefit of the doubt. You can’t say it “isn’t a concession” then go on to say why you think the concession applied at night time. You just disagreed then agreed with me in the second sentence.
It says you're guilty of murder because if you can tell they're just there to steal your property, then lethal force isn't necessary to protect one's life (back then, you would not have been able to figure out what their intent was at night). However, you can't make this passage say it's immoral to use lethal force if someone is trying to kill you during the day. The reason being is that it says it can be moral to kill an intruder at night because his intent may be homicide. The proper term for what is going on here is justice, not a concession/benefit of the doubt. You just asserted that I can't say it's not a concession, and gave no reason for that assertion.

Jesus sacrifice on the cross is the only thing that will save my family and friends, not my violence. You can love both while acting in complete non violence. Jesus said in John 15:13 No one has greater love than this, that a man lay down his life for his friends. Being willing to sacrifice your life is what Jesus referred to as greater love. Not by using violence, which are against His commands.
Yeah, and it is the greatest love if it is effectual. Jesus knew the laying down of his life would save us from our sins. However, with us, if laying down your life does nothing to save them (physically), then it was pointless. You had a chance to save them, and yet you did the thing that would not save them.

Pete hindered Jesus before and was told to ‘get behind me satan’. This time, he used violence to defend the only good person born into this world, and was rebuked for using violence, not for the hindrance. The context of the attack and rebuke shows the commitment Jesus had to His teaching of non violence.
Sorry, but the context of the attack and rebuke show that Jesus rebuked Peter for using violence unwisely (and thus not all violence) because it would be a hindrance to Jesus' mission (see verse 54 below specifically).
“Put away your sword,” Jesus told him. “Those who use the sword will die by the sword. Don’t you realize that I could ask my Father for thousands of angels to protect us, and he would send them instantly? But if I did, how would the Scriptures be fulfilled that describe what must happen now?”
Jesus' second statement above in the cite is also a proverbial statement, so it can't be applied as an absolute command to say the sword should never be used.

Jesus quotes Lex talonis in verse 38, which is an OT judicial law (confirmed again in verse 40), and then goes on to forbid His disciples from using it. There is NO qualifier here that supports your (mis)interpretation.

To quote John Cecil Cadoux, The Early Christian Attitude to War [1919]


A less shallow misinterpretation argues that Jesus meant this teaching to govern only the personal feelings and acts of the disciple in his purely private capacity, and left untouched his duty—as a member of society and for the sake of social welfare—to participate in the authoritative and official restraint and punishment of wrongdoers.3 Whether or no this interpretation be sound ethical teaching for the present day, the idea that it represents the meaning of Jesus cannot be allowed to pass unchallenged. For in this very passage, Jesus exhibits society’s authorized court of justice, not as duly punishing the offender whom the injured disciple has lovingly pardoned and then handed over to its jurisdiction, but as itself committing the wrong that has to be borne : “if anyone wishes to go to law with thee, and take away thy tunic,” and so on. But further than that, the Lex Talionis—that ancient Mosaic law requiring, in a case of strife between two men resulting in injury to one of them, “life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, burning for burning, wound for wound, stripe for stripe”1 —was no mere authorization of private revenge, permitting within certain limits the indulgence of personal resentment, but a public measure designed in the interests of society as a restraint upon wrongdoing, and doubtless meant to be carried out by (or under the supervision of) the public officers of the community. Yet this law Jesus quotes for the sole purpose of forbidding his disciples to apply it. We are therefore driven to the conclusion that he regarded the duty of neighbourly love as excluding the infliction of public penalties on behalf of society, as well as the indulgence of personal resentment.2

Sorry, but none of the injustices in those verses were illegal crimes that you could take someone to court for. Thus, Jesus is not saying Christians can't use the justice system. Pharisaic oral law of the time wrongly reasoned that the "eye for an eye" law could be applied personally as well as judicially. Jesus was correcting this notion. You still haven't showed how these verses speak to how self-defense would somehow be immoral.

It becomes immoral if God no longer gives His people authority to carry out the executions/war. Jesus tells His followers not to kill, therefore it is immoral to disobey. Just remember, this teaching is for those who choose to follow Him, not for the infidels (like pagan Rome/Assyria). The obsolete old covenant cannot be used to circumvent the commands of the Christ, our supreme teacher, in the light of the new covenant.
The government has the authority to execute. Why can't Christians be a part of the government? Where exactly does Jesus say all killing or violence is immoral for us? I haven't seen you demonstrate this so far.

[Obsidian]

Your post is indeed lengthy. The reason I called you a Gnostic is because you divorce yourself from the moral principles of the OT God. You might accurately try to call me a "Pharisee" (but not a Gnostic) because I believe the principles behind the law are valid. The problem with calling me a Pharisee, though, is that I am not a legalist. In fact, I think it's legalism to look at every quotation by Jesus and try to read into it some new, harsh, hard-to-follow rule. Instead, I believe Jesus was clarifying the principles of the OT.

The OT God glorified life so much that he commanded justice and urged Israel never to "ransom the life of a murderer." Of course, Yahweh also said to love your enemies (Exodus 23:4-5; Leviticus 19:18).

Your exegesis of the Sermon on the Mount is entirely illogical. At one point, Jesus says, "You have heard it said, 'Love your neighbor and hate your enemy.'" The Bible never tells you to hate your enemy. That quote (along with Matthew 5:18) makes plain that Jesus is overturning Pharisaical teachings, not God's law. Second, the "eye for an eye" provision in the OT deals with vengeance (or justice), not self-defense. Furthermore, none of Jesus's examples even deals with the loss of an eye or a tooth! It's clear that he is talking about petty vengeance, which God already prohibited in Leviticus 19:18. Jesus never even mentions the phrase "life for life" so we have absolutely no reason to think he is referring to life-and-death matters.

And you completely evade the issue when you ask for examples of personal self-defense in the NT. In reality, the Bible never describes an example of personal self-defense, except the one instance of Jacob vs. God. Of course defense occurred, but the Bible doesn't mention it. In Genesis 4:8, should we assume that Abel had no right to fight back just because Moses doesn't mention a struggle?

Of course, the NT mentions Christians in leadership positions quite often, just as the OT mentions believing rulers: Matthew 8:5-13; Luke 3:12-14; Luke 19:8-9; Acts 10:1, 44; Acts 13:12; Acts 16:34; Revelation 20:4-6.

Pacifists routinely argue that Christians should not enter leadership but should leave those positions to the wicked pagans. What a foolish argument! If the governor is "God's servant to do you good," why would anyone want to let only evil men rule? You yourself admit that violence is sometimes necessary, but you suggest that only pagans should do it. Is that how morality usually works? Does God normally make rules that apply only to his followers but not to unbelievers? And if police officers are necessary to prevent chaos, why would God's morality prohibit police action? Your theology makes God appear very stupid. But God's law is perfect. If violence is indeed wrong, then it is immoral to call the police to your assistance -- to let them get their hands dirty with "immorality." But pacifists usually won't go that far. They will call the police, because their doctrine is absurd and because they are hypocrites.

Furthermore, Jesus himself performed a seemingly violent act when he cleared the temple. "Jesus entered the temple area and drove out all who were buying and selling there" (Matthew 21:12). Pacifists generally try to pretend that Jesus only attacked the tables, coins, and animals, but that under no circumstances would Jesus have touched another human being. I think that explanation is plainly idiotic. If you were a merchant and some maniac came in and wrecked your shop, along with everyone else's, would you just stand by and watch? (Well, I guess maybe you would, so that's probably a bad example.) We don't know for certain whether he had to hit anyone, but he certainly threatened to hit them. If Jesus didn't at least intimidate the merchants through explicit or implicit threats, they wouldn't have let him ruin their business. Zeal for God's house consumed Jesus.

In short, Jesus taught love, not non-violence. There is definitely a difference, as the OT makes clear. Just as it wasn't unloving to call wicked Pharisees "brood of vipers," it isn't unloving to protect yourself from murderers. If Jesus hadn't been on a suicide mission, he surely would have done so himself, or otherwise commanded his servants to protect him (Matthew 26:53; John 18:36).

Furthermore, you seem intent on using Jesus's sayings to abrogate OT law, but that defies the Messiah's role. As I said, he only ate kosher foods because he was the perfect Jew. (No, he will not restrict himself to Jewish foods when he comes back. The sacrifice is now complete.) We Christians do not follow a ritualistic Sabbath or give animal sacrifices to God -- But Jesus followed the sabbath (with reasonable, principled exceptions) and encouraged people to give sacrifices. See Matthew 8:4. You keep harping on the "New Covenant," but the New Covenant didn't exist when Jesus gave the Sermon on the Mount. He was talking to a bunch of Jews.



As for polygamy, I'm not entirely convinced that polygamy is now inherently wrong. Societies definitely have the right to prohibit it, though, and the OT examples make it clear that polygamy can be destructive. But as far as I know, God never commanded polygamy the way he did violence and, in some cases, divorce. So it wouldn't be inconsistent for God now to say that polygamy is bad.

The prohibition against eating blood was to prevent vampirism, cannibalism, and magic rituals. It doesn't doesn't deal with undercooked steak or blood transfusions. So you could say that it still applies even today.

We obey the Sabbath today by accepting Christ. Af that point, we have already entered into God's rest from works. See Hebrews 4.

[Obsidian]

Btw, I think any pacifist should wisely ask himself why his own doctrines just happen to coincide with the beliefs of evil sects like the Gnostics and Jehovah's Witnesses.

[Augustine2004]

As for polygamy, I'm not entirely convinced that polygamy is now inherently wrong. Societies definitely have the right to prohibit it, though, and the OT examples make it clear that polygamy can be destructive. But as far as I know, God never commanded polygamy the way he did violence and, in some cases, divorce. So it wouldn't be inconsistent for God now to say that polygamy is bad..You write knowing Luke 10:5-12?
And Jesus answered and said to [the Pharisees], "Because of the hardness of your heart he wrote you this precept.

"But from the beginning of the creation, God 'made the male and female.

"For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife [singular, not plural], and the two shall become one flesh, so then they are no longer two, but one flesh.

"Therefore what God has joined together, let not man separate."

Adultery is a man having sexual relations with a woman who is married. I'm not sure about a married man having sex with a woman who is then unmarried. In any case, if that was not sin, that woman must now be counted as one of the man's wives. I'd play it safe and have just one woman as my wife, anyway.

[Obsidian]

Yeah, that's what I always assumed, but I'm reading a book (http://www.amazon.com/Divorce-remarriage-Recovering-biblical-view/dp/0060653116/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1238382444&sr=8-1) right now about divorce which suggests that polygamy isn't technically wrong in God's eyes. The author suggests that by Jesus's time, polygamy had largely ceased and that most wedding contracts prohibited the man from taking additional wives. I haven't really made up my mind yet. Polygamy definitely seems foolish in light of the OT examples, though. Even if it's not inherently wrong, I do think it's largely obsolete and that laws (and modern wedding vows) should ban polygamy.

Right or wrong, I haven't yet seen any solid evidence that God actually commanded polygamy.

[Augustine2004]

1 Timothy 3:2 "husband of one wife"--the literal meaning of the Greek original from which that translation was made is, "one-woman man." Not a prohibition of polygamy, to be sure, but nonetheless it seems Christian men were expected to have just one wife each.

[Daniel Keeran]

How do you know Stephen didn't try to defend himself? A big stone can hit you in the back and knock you to the ground within a second, so maybe Stephen never had a chance to conduct an effective defense.

The point is we find only admonitions of patient sacrificial endurance of suffering and love for enemies, never one teaching or example of violent defense except Peter's sword which early Christians took as renouncing violent defense rather than justification for it.

[Augustine2004]

Acts 16:16-18
Paul, greatly annoyed, turned and said to [the slave girl's demon], "I command you in the name of Jesus Christ to come out of her."

Acts 16:26 "Suddenly there was a great earthquake . . . immediately the [prison] doors were opened and everyone's chains were loosed."

The keeper of the prison was about to commit suicide, when he realized Paul and Silas were following Daniel Keeran's admonitions of patient sacrifical endurance of suffering and love for enemies. The keeper immediately refastened chains on Paul and Silas.

Acts 17:14-15 . . .[Jews from Thesalonica] came [to Berea] also and stirred up the crowds.

So those who conducted Paul brought him to the crowds so that he may exercise patient sacrificial endurance of suffering and love for enemies.

Acts 18:5-7: When Silas and Timothy had come from Macedonia, Paul was constrained by the Spirit and testified to the Jews that Jesus is the Christ.

But when they opposed him and blasphemed, he said, "I love you. I will practice patient sacrificial endurance of suffering."


The riot at Ephesus is a great example of patient sacrificial endurance of suffering, when the mob killed at long last Paul and his companions.

[Obsidian]

I'm getting fed up with your dishonesty, Daniel Keenan. When you say "early Christians," you basically mean "Tertullian," who was a heretic. By the way, did you know that God declares theater, chariot racing, and teaching as sinful? I certainly didn't know it either, but Tertullian and his friend Hippolytus (another schismatic) thought so.

But here is what I say: Anyone who sets Jesus up against his own laws is committing sacrilege. Jesus said that love of neighbor (and of God) summed up the Law and the Prophets. That is, law and love are the same thing. Any "church father" speaking against the Word of God should be condemned for error, not embraced because of that error.

The threat of force actually produces peace. Jesus himself stated so:


For I am with you, and no one is going to attack and harm you, because I have many people in this city." So Paul stayed for a year and a half, teaching them the word of God.

Strength in numbers only works if the multitude is willing to lift a finger.

Later, Paul himself used the threat of violent defense to protect himself from the Jewish assassins in Acts 23.


The commander took the young man by the hand, drew him aside and asked, "What is it you want to tell me?"

He said: "The Jews have agreed to ask you to bring Paul before the Sanhedrin tomorrow on the pretext of wanting more accurate information about him. Don't give in to them, because more than forty of them are waiting in ambush for him. They have taken an oath not to eat or drink until they have killed him. They are ready now, waiting for your consent to their request."

Apparently he didn't consider it sinful to ask the police to continue protecting him. But tempting others to sin is always sinful. What can we conclude from this passage? That government is legitimate, not sinful.

And we can also conclude that any "early church father" who states otherwise is a moron.

[Cow Poke]

...As I said, he only ate kosher foods because he was the perfect Jew...

How do we KNOW that?
Is it merely an assumption based on the premise that Jesus was "the perfect Jew"?

And, actually, is "the perfect Jew" a title or designation proclaimed in the Bible, or is this an attempt to state the obvious?

[Obsidian]

I thought it was obvious concept that Jesus never violated the law. He stated so in Matthew 5:18-19. But you can be certain that if he had eaten gentile foods, the Pharisees would have pointed it out. Instead, the Pharisees merely complained about superficial issues like Jesus's failure to wash his hands. Handwashing was a "tradition of the elders" not contained in Scripture...kinda like some other extrabiblical traditions that come to mind! :ahem:

[Cow Poke]

I thought it was obvious concept that Jesus never violated the law. He stated so in Matthew 5:18-19. But you can be certain that if he had eaten gentile foods, the Pharisees would have pointed it out. Instead, the Pharisees merely complained about superficial issues like Jesus's failure to wash his hands. Handwashing was a "tradition of the elders" not contained in Scripture...kinda like some other extrabiblical traditions that come to mind! :ahem:
BUT!!!! There were many OTHER things that Jesus did... Here, lemme let John say it....

21:25 And there are also many other things which Jesus did, the which, if they should be written every one, I suppose that even the world itself could not contain the books that should be written. Amen.

So, how do we KNOW that Jesus didn't do something that the pharisees didn't see and wasn't recorded? Hmmmm? (yes, i'm being pernicious)

[Augustine2004]

BUT!!!! There were many OTHER things that Jesus did... Here, lemme let John say it....

21:25 And there are also many other things which Jesus did, the which, if they should be written every one, I suppose that even the world itself could not contain the books that should be written. Amen.

So, how do we KNOW that Jesus didn't do something that the pharisees didn't see and wasn't recorded? Hmmmm? (yes, i'm being pernicious)Um . . . let me figure it out. One does NOT do something. WHAT could others see? I guess I don't understand.

[Cow Poke]

Um . . . let me figure it out. One does NOT do something. WHAT could others see? I guess I don't understand.

I'm being light-hearted here.... but reminding us (and me) that "just because it isn't in the Bible doesn't mean it didn't happen".

Is that better? :sigh: Simply put, Jesus did a LOT of things (according to the Scripture) that were not recorded. So, just because the Bible doesn't tell us he did something, doesn't mean he didn't do it. Like when Jesus healed somebody then said "go and tell no one"... I wonder how many times he DID heal somebody, and it wasn't recorded in the Bible, because the healed person(s) actually LISTENED (and obeyed) him.

That's all. :smile:

[Augustine2004]

I'm being light-hearted here.... but reminding us (and me) that "just because it isn't in the Bible doesn't mean it didn't happen".

Is that better? :sigh: Simply put, Jesus did a LOT of things (according to the Scripture) that were not recorded. So, just because the Bible doesn't tell us he did something, doesn't mean he didn't do it. Like when Jesus healed somebody then said "go and tell no one"... I wonder how many times he DID heal somebody, and it wasn't recorded in the Bible, because the healed person(s) actually LISTENED (and obeyed) him.

That's all. :smile:Is your contention that the Bible is insufficient as a 'handbook' for our lives?

[Cow Poke]

Is your contention that the Bible is insufficient as a 'handbook' for our lives?

Nope! Not at all, Aug....... Just saying there's probably a lot of other stuff that would be really interesting to know. Apparently, God didn't think we "needed" the extra stuff to which i'm referring.

Can i give another example? The prayer that Jesus prayed in the garden several times while the disciples slept... The Bible only gives us one phrase... I'm thinking Jesus probably prayed a lot more than that! But I really don't know.

But thanks for asking, instead of jumping all up in my face!!! <grin> I love civil discourse!

[Obsidian]

To answer your (nonserious) question, when Jesus ultmately commanded Peter in a vision to eat Gentile foods, Peter said, "No, Lord, I've never eaten anything unclean." If Peter hung out with Jesus all the time, and if Peter never ate anything unclean while Jesus was alive, I think we can safely assume that Jesus never ate anything unclean.

[Daniel Keeran]

Acts 16:16-18
Paul, greatly annoyed, turned and said to [the slave girl's demon], "I command you in the name of Jesus Christ to come out of her."

Acts 16:26 "Suddenly there was a great earthquake . . . immediately the [prison] doors were opened and everyone's chains were loosed."

The keeper of the prison was about to commit suicide, when he realized Paul and Silas were following Daniel Keeran's admonitions of patient sacrifical endurance of suffering and love for enemies. The keeper immediately refastened chains on Paul and Silas.

Acts 17:14-15 . . .[Jews from Thesalonica] came [to Berea] also and stirred up the crowds.

So those who conducted Paul brought him to the crowds so that he may exercise patient sacrificial endurance of suffering and love for enemies.

Acts 18:5-7: When Silas and Timothy had come from Macedonia, Paul was constrained by the Spirit and testified to the Jews that Jesus is the Christ.

But when they opposed him and blasphemed, he said, "I love you. I will practice patient sacrificial endurance of suffering."


The riot at Ephesus is a great example of patient sacrificial endurance of suffering, when the mob killed at long last Paul and his companions.


Patient endurance of suffering rather than use of violent defense. The means of opposing evil for Christians in the New Testament is always is the word of God which is the sword of the spirit, fruits of the spirit of Galatians 5, and other spiritual armour of Ephesians 6.

[Daniel Keeran]

Later, Paul himself used the threat of violent defense to protect himself from the Jewish assassins in Acts 23.

Apparently he didn't consider it sinful to ask the police to continue protecting him. But tempting others to sin is always sinful. What can we conclude from this passage? That government is legitimate, not sinful.

And we can also conclude that any "early church father" who states otherwise is a moron.


Paul did NOT ask the police for protection. What is very significant is that Paul did not ask the commander to attack or arrest the Jews but only not to take him to Jerusalem. This is not using a threat of violent defense. In fact, Paul wisely arranged to avoid a violent confrontation between the Jews and the commander's soldiers.

Acts 23:19-21
He said: "The Jews have agreed to ask you to bring Paul before the Sanhedrin tomorrow on the pretext of wanting more accurate information about him. Don't give in to them, because more than forty of them are waiting in ambush for him. They have taken an oath not to eat or drink until they have killed him. They are ready now, waiting for your consent to their request."

[Obsidian]

Two more arguments

1. Paul and Jesus both used biting language to attack their enemies. Can you give any biblical justification for distinguishing between physical and verbal violence?

2. Furthermore,
Romans 13 says to give to every government what is due, including taxes, honor, and obedience. Using your theory that all violence is sinful, how can we distinguish any government from a band of criminals? Under your theory, no violence is ever legitimate. That means no government can ever be legitimate. How can we obey and honor an illegitmate authority?

If we must pay taxes to "evil" governments, shouldn't we therefore pay taxes, honor, and homage to any criminal or terrorist group which calls itself an "authority"? What about foreign governments? Should we obey them, too?

I say that authority must either be legitimate and righteous, or otherwise evil and illegitimate. You, however, have thrown the idea of righteous rule out the window.

[Obsidian]

Also, consider the issue of Threats

You did not respond to my point about the vision of Jesus. Jesus told Paul that he should rely on the implicit threat of Christian violence for protection. Of course, you could always argue that threats are okay whereas carrying through with the threats is evil -- but I think that's extremely arbitrary.

Similarly, when Jesus was cleansing the temple out of zeal for God, do you seriously think that if someone had lain a hand on him to restrain him, that he would have stopped? (From the text, there's no way for us to know whether Jesus made contact with any human beings or whether they made any contact with him. But either way, my hypothetical question remains.)

[Augustine2004]

Paul did NOT ask the police for protection. What is very significant is that Paul did not ask the commander to attack or arrest the Jews but only not to take him to Jerusalem. This is not using a threat of violent defense. In fact, Paul wisely arranged to avoid a violent confrontation between the Jews and the commander's soldiers.Acts 23:16 And when Paul's sister's son heard of [the 40 Jews'] ambush, he went and entered the barracks and told Paul.

Paul prayed and prayed to the Lord. He replied, "Paul, you must do what Daniel Keeran advocates. Let the forty Jews ambush and kill you. You will be a greater sacrifice than Stephan was."

Acts 23:19-21
He said: "The Jews have agreed to ask you to bring Paul before the Sanhedrin tomorrow on the pretext of wanting more accurate information about him. Don't give in to them, because more than forty of them are waiting in ambush for him. They have taken an oath not to eat or drink until they have killed him. They are ready now, waiting for your consent to their request."[/QUOTE]Oops, did I misread? Ah, no, Paul did ask the soldiers not to protect him, in accordance with what Daniel Keeran has steadfastly been advocating.

[mwavenger]

Sir Wilk, the scripture doesn’t describe the thief’s intention or the thought process of the owner. That’s your personal view only. Intention isn’t the key here, but the result. You kill at daytime then you’re guilty. You kill at night, and you’re not – the concession is darkness, which can amount to manslaughter/accidental slaying.

You’re mixing up sacrifice with killing another human. They are two different things. And Yoder will point out about 7 different things that can happen during any encounter. By saying ‘you had a chance to save them’ you really meant, that I have a chance to KILL someone.

Great point on the Matt 26:54, I should not have downplayed the Messianic mission in that instance. However I would still hold that the axiom Jesus gave places all killing/violence on a negative light, as Jesus disarming Peter, He unbelted every Christian soldier to come. Now I am not relying on this solely, but the entire NT commands and teachings… the axiom just adds to it..

So Jesus had to list every single injustice before you will be satisfied? Repaying evil for evil, strike for strike is what is immoral. You have waived of the lex talonis as if it WAS NOT a judicial law of ancient Israel. Your argument hasn’t even scratched at Cadoux yet.

Matthew 5:9-10, 38,43-48, Romans 12. Is the starting point for the biblical pacifist position. Hence though pagan Rome may have wielded the sword, no Christian was allowed to join (just like no Christian/Israelite would even think of joining pagan Assyria’s war machine). God may confound evil persons and use them to good ends to protect His people, but it doesn’t make them any less evil.



Pacifists routinely argue that Christians.... Alittle bit more whingeing… But pacifists usually won't go that far. They will call the police, yadda yadda yadda I am a crybaby. .

Keep building that strawman matey. Maybe you can work on the set of the Wizard of Oz too one day… live the dream kid.

And re: polygamy… you’re not related to Jospeh Smith or Mohammed by any chance – strange how your beliefs coincide with Islam, just remember to keep it at 4 wives. But I’ll let you dig that hole by yourself. You want to read your pre-conceived ideas into the scripture, like you have with Gen 4, that’s your problem, but it does not appear Abel fought back at all, there is no indication as such, so any self defence claim is unwarranted.

John the Baptist is not the Messiah, though he is the great prophet foretold. It is the Messiah’s teachings we obey. Using Cornelius is an argument from silence, as we do not know one way or the other what he did after receiving Christs teaching (and it wasn’t the point of being recorded by Luke).

In regards to your stupid claim that Jesus used violence against humans in Matthew 21:12, why don’t you PROVE IT! It’s not in scripture and this shows how you do not even understand the social setting of that time. He didn’t hit any human, but only in your convoluted mind. No commentator even remotely agrees with you… so your on your own there… tread water mate.

HOW did you take a verbal rhetoric (brood of vipers) and use it to prove that violence is ok… that is utterly absurd. Listen donkey, Christians can use WORDS, just not violence! Sheesh, you can’t be that thick… no maybe you can.

I asked for evidence to prove that Jesus taught/used violence and not only can you fail that task, but you can show a disregard for scripture and intentionally pervert it to your own ends. You then throw out people like Tertullian for being a heretic, but he would be the first person you’d run to for a Trinitarian discussion. Same goes with Origen and “you can’t trust him, he castrated himself blah blah (though this was most certainly a lie perpetuated by his enemies)”. I’m tired of this, as you have shown yourself to be dishonest.

If you seriously believe that your position is strong, check out http://cramercomments.blogspot.com/search/label/pacifism

D.C. Cramer’s blog may be of particular interest here, if you are honestly seeking the Christian non-violent viewpoint. He deals with issues such as morality, police etc, as you mentioned above. I would also recommend reading Amazing Rando’s essay, Cadoux and JH Yoder’s Politics of Jesus, especially the chapter + epilogue of “God will fight for us”. Because I think you haven’t read them yet, and you will find them persuasive. Anyways DCCrammer answers the majority of these rebuttals, so I’ll defer to him.


PS: Aug2004 your post 208 is daft. Daniel gave you a biblical answer, and all you can do is try and sidetrack the issue with a tangent out of nowhere. Most of the posts I have seen from you are based on unfounded observations based on your ideas of what the scriptures ‘should’ say.

Daniel, I seriously commend your patience and grace in responding to this kind of garbage. But keep at it as I have enjoyed your keen reasoning against the silly comments being posted (I think you proved your point around page 8). It’s apparent that they have run out of ammo and are merely clutching at straws now.

Take care

[Daniel Keeran]

Two more arguments

1. Paul and Jesus both used biting language to attack their enemies. Can you give any biblical justification for distinguishing between physical and verbal violence?

2. Furthermore,
Romans 13 says to give to every government what is due, including taxes, honor, and obedience. Using your theory that all violence is sinful, how can we distinguish any government from a band of criminals? Under your theory, no violence is ever legitimate. That means no government can ever be legitimate. How can we obey and honor an illegitmate authority?

If we must pay taxes to "evil" governments, shouldn't we therefore pay taxes, honor, and homage to any criminal or terrorist group which calls itself an "authority"? What about foreign governments? Should we obey them, too?

I say that authority must either be legitimate and righteous, or otherwise evil and illegitimate. You, however, have thrown the idea of righteous rule out the window.

Romans 13:1,2 "EVERY power is of God" The Roman imperial government was full of treachery and violence toward Christians, but Paul said obey and pay taxes, but when forced to choose between God and man, Christians must always obey God rather than men. This choice will lead to Christian deaths not to Christian revolution.

[Daniel Keeran]

Acts 23:16 And when Paul's sister's son heard of [the 40 Jews'] ambush, he went and entered the barracks and told Paul.

Paul prayed and prayed to the Lord. He replied, "Paul, you must do what Daniel Keeran advocates. Let the forty Jews ambush and kill you. You will be a greater sacrifice than Stephan was."

Acts 23:19-21
He said: "The Jews have agreed to ask you to bring Paul before the Sanhedrin tomorrow on the pretext of wanting more accurate information about him. Don't give in to them, because more than forty of them are waiting in ambush for him. They have taken an oath not to eat or drink until they have killed him. They are ready now, waiting for your consent to their request."

Oops, did I misread? Ah, no, Paul did ask the soldiers not to protect him, in accordance with what Daniel Keeran has steadfastly been advocating.

Paul was under arrest and being escorted as a criminal under armed guard. He was in no position to ASK for protection, let alone tell the soldiers to go away.

[Daniel Keeran]

Also, consider the issue of Threats

You did not respond to my point about the vision of Jesus. Jesus told Paul that he should rely on the implicit threat of Christian violence for protection. Of course, you could always argue that threats are okay whereas carrying through with the threats is evil -- but I think that's extremely arbitrary.

Similarly, when Jesus was cleansing the temple out of zeal for God, do you seriously think that if someone had lain a hand on him to restrain him, that he would have stopped? (From the text, there's no way for us to know whether Jesus made contact with any human beings or whether they made any contact with him. But either way, my hypothetical question remains.)

Having many Christians in a city contains no implied threat of violence to anyone. Jesus' cleansing the temple was in fulfillment of prophecy (zeal for thy house has consumed me) and because of his authority to meet out judgment (destroy this temple and in three days I will raise it up). Jesus is our example in his sufferng and death (1 Peter 2), not in his role as Messiah King of Israel.

[Augustine2004]

Romans 13:1,2 "EVERY power is of God" The Roman imperial government was full of treachery and violence toward Christians, but Paul said obey and pay taxes, but when forced to choose between God and man, Christians must always obey God rather than men. This choice will lead to Christian deaths not to Christian revolution.You should have said, " . . . if it be God's will." You're assuming that anything other than pacifism is evil. Thus, you do eisegesis of the Bible. That's evil, unless somehow your pacifism happens to be the right thing.

[Augustine2004]

Having many Christians in a city contains no implied threat of violence to anyone.I think that's a good point.
<snip> and because of his authority to meet out judgment (destroy this temple and in three days I will raise it up).I think Jesus meant his death and Resurrection.
Jesus is our example in his sufferng and death (1 Peter 2), not in his role as Messiah King of Israel.Total pacifism does not follow from the requirement to submit to the authorities or higher powers, no matter how harsh. The police can't be everywhere. In some situations help may be minutes away, and you need to decide in a second whether to commit violence to save or not. E.g., you have a club and somehow observe nearby a man who is getting ready to rape a partially undressed and trussed-up woman who looks frightened.

[Augustine2004]

Most of the posts I have seen from you are based on unfounded observations based on your ideas of what the scriptures ‘should’ say.A specific example would be appreciated.

[Obsidian]

lol mwavenger, if only you would hate foreign tyrants and murderers as much as you hate me! And yes, I did look at Rando's work (briefly), along with other pacifist websites which claim to give the "unanimous" opinion of the church fathers. Most of these websites are flagrantly dishonest. (This paper (http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1144924) gives a more balanced view.) For example, Rando completely ignored much of Clement of Alexandria's teaching, including Clement's justification of the death penalty and criminal punishment in general. Whether he did so intentionally or due to sloppy research, I don't know.


I think that's a good point [regarding implicit threats].

No, it's actually a silly and false assumption. Pacifists rely on implicit threats of force all the time (e.g., the police and army and nuclear deterrence), but they just claim they would never actually carry out those threats. So in their view, Jesus merely scared all the temple merchants into submission and wrecked their merchandise, but if the merchants had actually resisted Jesus (assuming they didn't), he would have let them continue in their sins.

For those of you who worship Tertullian, you should also withdraw from teaching, public games, theater (movies?), second marriages (even for widows), and probably some other stuff I'm forgetting about.

And I could argue further, hilighting additional areas where you have essentially ignored my points, but I'm kinda tired. I have already solidified my own argument for my own purposes, and the people I am arguing against are obviously set in their ways. Maybe I'll be back later. I don't know.

[Augustine2004]

Obsidian, you apparently meant that Paul was safe in Rome because many Christians were in Rome at that time, ready to render aid to him if he needed to be defended. I thought that Rome was powerful enough to put down the Christians. Indeed some years later the Romans put down a massive Jewish rebellion and sacked Jerusalem including the Temple in 70 AD. Otherwise, I think you're correct, if you had in mind non-government would-be evildoers.

[Sir Wilshire]

Sir Wilk, the scripture doesn’t describe the thief’s intention or the thought process of the owner.
We wouldn't expect it too. Exodus is a high-context document i.e. the author shares a lot of unstated assumptions with his readers. This explanation will help. It applies even more so to the OT because writing material would have been even harder to come by.

Malina and Rohrbaugh note in their Social-Science Commentary on John [16ff] that the NT was written in what anthropologists call a "high-context" society. In such societies people "presume a broadly shared, well-understood, or 'high' knowledge of the context of anything referred to in conversation or in writing." Readers were required and expected to "fill in the gap" because their background knowledge was a given. Extended explanations were unnecessary. As an example, they note the story of the woman at the well in John 4. This story is full of background templates that John does not explain, but that make the story meaningful: For example, the time of the meeting (noon, as they read it) shows that the woman is an outcast, for it is not the time when water is normally gathered and when socialization occurs among the village women, but John sees no need to explain that the time is unusual for he assumes his readers will know that it is.

In contrast, we in the modern US are a "low-context" society. We assume little or no knowledge of he context of a communication. This is in part because we have so many specialized fields requiring specialized knowledge. Thus we expect background to be given when communication is given between fields. This is in contrast to the ancient world where there was little specialized knowledge.
Also, ancient law codes were didactic. This is explained well below.

In so noting critics display their incredible lack of familiarity with the nature and construction of ancient legal codes, which were primarily didactic in nature. Few if any laws were designed, or intended to, lay out every possible exception to the rule. Exodus 22:1 reads, "If a man shall steal an ox, or a sheep, and kill it, or sell it; he shall restore five oxen for an ox, and four sheep for a sheep." This says "if a man" and it uses the Hebrew word for a male person; it is not a generalized "man" as in human. So does this law allow that a woman may steal and ox or a sheep and kill it and sell it, and suffer no consequences? Does it also mean one may steal a goat, or a cow, or would it later allow us to steal all manner of critters from horses to ostriches? After all, only oxen and sheep are specified.
The law codes were to be used to help courts make just judgments.

That’s your personal view only. Intention isn’t the key here, but the result. You kill at daytime then you’re guilty. You kill at night, and you’re not – the concession is darkness, which
can amount to manslaughter/accidental slaying.
You can't wave my argument away as something foreign to the text. It is based on what would have been facts of the situations which I have stated previously. Also, here is the article (http://www.tektonics.org/af/ebe21.html#ex222) that I got some of my points from. It adds some things I did not state.

You’re mixing up sacrifice with killing another human. They are two different things. And Yoder will point out about 7 different things that can happen during any encounter. By saying ‘you had a chance to save them’ you really meant, that I have a chance to KILL someone.

I'm not seeing how I mixed them up. Please elaborate. I looked at Yoder's 7 points in that blog you linked to, and I generally agree with him. As I said, violence should be a last resort (ideally you would be able to run out of the house with your family unnoticed). However, there are still some situations you can be forced into where you will have to think quickly in order to save someone, and the only option may be attacking the criminal. You also did not address my point about how the sacrifice has to be effectual.

Great point on the Matt 26:54, I should not have downplayed the Messianic mission in that instance. However I would still hold that the axiom Jesus gave places all killing/violence on a negative light, as Jesus disarming Peter, He unbelted every Christian soldier to come. Now I am not relying on this solely, but the entire NT commands and teachings… the axiom just adds to it..
Thanks, but even if the rest of the NT taught explicit pacifism, I don't see how this passage could mean any more than what I said in my last post. It's a proverbial statement for crying out loud. You seem bent on taking it as an absolute.

So Jesus had to list every single injustice before you will be satisfied? Repaying evil for evil, strike for strike is what is immoral. You have waived of the lex talonis as if it WAS NOT a judicial law of ancient Israel. Your argument hasn’t even scratched at Cadoux yet.
When I said wrongly reasoned, I was referring to the personal level application. Jesus was not dismissing the judicial application, but the personal application. Also, I'll state what I said before in a different way. If Jesus were forbidding using the courts to get justice, then he would have used an example where a disciple had a crime committed against him, and he would have stated that the disciple should not seek justice. Please show how any three of those examples from the passage were illegal crimes. You and Cadoux both wrongly state Jesus is dismissing the judicial application of this Mosaic Law. Also, I'm still waiting to see how these passages apply to self-defense situations and wars.

Matthew 5:9-10, 38,43-48, Romans 12. Is the starting point for the biblical pacifist position. Hence though pagan Rome may have wielded the sword, no Christian was allowed to join (just like no Christian/Israelite would even think of joining pagan Assyria’s war machine). God may confound evil persons and use them to good ends to protect His people, but it doesn’t make them any less evil.
I don't know how much of the following is your argument on Romans 12 & 13, but I don't think they bar Christians from participating in the government. Romans 12:19-20 are cites from the OT, so they can hardly be used to support that all violence is wrong or that Christians can't administer the vengeance of God as a part of the government. Some pacifists' reasoning I've seen before seems to argue:

1. Romans 12 says Christians are not to take vengeance but to leave it to God (this makes sense since Paul is writing to Christians who aren't a part of the government).
2. Romans 13 says the government is God's instrument of vengeance.
3. Therefore, because these passages inform each contextually in a textual sense, Christians can't be a part of the government.

How 3 follows from 1 & 2 I have no idea. It's a non-sequiter.

[Daniel Keeran]

1. Romans 12 says Christians are not to take vengeance but to leave it to God (this makes sense since Paul is writing to Christians who aren't a part of the government).
2. Romans 13 says the government is God's instrument of vengeance.
3. Therefore, because these passages inform each contextually in a textual sense, Christians can't be a part of the government.

How 3 follows from 1 & 2 I have no idea. It's a non-sequiter.

The larger context demands a conclusion of non-participation in government. Since Christians owe priority allegiance to the kingdom of God, all agree that arresting or killing a Christian at least for his faith would be wrong. Cornelius and the Philippian jailer would have had to refuse. Yet on the same count, Christians must love their enemies as Christ loved us and laid down his life for us when we were enemies. So when ordered to kill enemies for the government, Christians must refuse and suffer the consequences.

Christian love for enemies is informed by Christ's love for his enemies in his death:
Romans 5:8-10 "But God demonstrates his own love for us in this: While we were still sinners, Christ died for us. Since we have now been justified by his blood, how much more shall we be saved from God's wrath through him! For if, when we were God's enemies, we were reconciled to him through the death of his Son, how much more, having been reconciled, shall we be saved through his life!"

[Sir Wilshire]

The larger context demands a conclusion of non-participation in government. Since Christians owe priority allegiance to the kingdom of God, all agree that arresting or killing a Christian at least for his faith would be wrong. Cornelius and the Philippian jailer would have had to refuse. Yet on the same count, Christians must love their enemies as Christ loved us and laid down his life for us when we were enemies. So when ordered to kill enemies for the government, Christians must refuse and suffer the consequences.

The love for enemies Christ showed there was an atonement. We can't do that. There is nothing in the love your enemies passage that would make one think it can't give away in a moral dilemma like some I've mentioned earlier.

[Mere_Christian]

I'm sure my explanation to Jesus on my day of judgment as to why I had to be violent to a person, to stop them from the violence they were engaging in on another person (or myself) will go well.

[Augustine2004]

I'm inclined to agree that military service probably would entail shedding innocent blood. Christians therefore should refuse to fight on the behalf of Rome.

[Daniel Keeran]

The love for enemies Christ showed there was an atonement. We can't do that. There is nothing in the love your enemies passage that would make one think it can't give away in a moral dilemma like some I've mentioned earlier.

The love of Christ is enjoined upon ALL Christians.

1 John 3:16
"This is how we know what love is: Jesus Christ laid down his life for us. And we ought to lay down our lives for our brothers.:

The same agape love is used with reference to our enemies. It is the love of christ in his death that we are called upon to have toward enemies, AND we are called to suffer as Jesus did in his death with the same patience entrusting ourselves to God even unto the shedding of our own blood in death (Hebrews 12:4).

Luke 6: 27-28 "But I tell you who hear me: Love your enemies, do good to those who hate you, bless those who curse you, pray for those who mistreat you.'

1 Peter 2:20-23
"For it is commendable if a man bears up under the pain of unjust suffering because he is conscious of God. But how is it to your credit if you receive a beating for doing wrong and endure it? But if you suffer for doing good and you endure it, this is commendable before God. To this you were called, because Christ suffered for you, leaving you an example, that you should follow in his steps.
'He committed no sin, and no deceit was found in his mouth.'
When they hurled their insults at him, he did not retaliate; when he suffered, he made no threats. Instead, he entrusted himself to him who judges justly."

[Augustine2004]

A man is about to rape Daniel K's wife. Daniel just found out what is happening. He loves the man more than the wife, so he simply tries to ask the man not to rape her. The man, recognizing Daniel as pacifist, gets up and knocks him out.

Daniel did not even pick up a baseball bat that was in the kitchen. When he came to, he sees the wife, who has been brutalized. He had to call for an ambulance, but does not call the police.

[Daniel Keeran]

A man is about to rape Daniel K's wife. Daniel just found out what is happening. He loves the man more than the wife, so he simply tries to ask the man not to rape her. The man, recognizing Daniel as pacifist, gets up and knocks him out.

Daniel did not even pick up a baseball bat that was in the kitchen. When he came to, he sees the wife, who has been brutalized. He had to call for an ambulance, but does not call the police.

The love that God demonstrated toward us when we were enemies, has been poured into our hearts.

A man is about to rape Daniel K's wife. Daniel just found out what is happening. Remembering the suffering of Christ and Stephen, Daniel loves the man as much as he loves his wife, so he tries to place himself between them and to carry his wife away. The man, recognizes Daniel as pacifist, gets up and beats on Daniel and his wife, killing him and raping then killing her.

Before they died, Daniel and his wife told the man they love and forgive him, praised God as they died and asked God to forgive the man who attacked them.

Romans 5:3-8
Not only so, but we also rejoice in our sufferings, because we know that suffering produces perseverance; perseverance, character; and character, hope. And hope does not disappoint us, because God has poured out his love into our hearts by the Holy Spirit, whom he has given us.
You see, at just the right time, when we were still powerless, Christ died for the ungodly....But God demonstrates his own love for us in this: While we were still sinners, Christ died for us....

v.10 "For if, when we were God's enemies, we were reconciled to him through the death of his Son..."

[Augustine2004]

Daniel Keeran heard screams coming from a grove. He investigates and discovers a man and a woman. She is lying on the ground and screaming. The man's knee is on her stomach, and he is pulling down his pants. She is trying to fight the man off, but she is small compared to the gigantic man.

Lo and behold, there's a baseball bat in front of Daniel. He ignores it, however. He calls out to the man, who startles at that. He scowls at Daniel and gets up to his feet, zipping up his pants quickly. He sees the bat and makes a scramble for it. Daniel could have easily gotten the bat first, but he does not reach for it. Instead, he simply says, "Rape is wrong. Please leave her alone."

The man gets to the bat and picks it up.

Daniel says, "Please go on your way, and leave us alone."

Is that a good way for Daniel to save the woman or himself?

[Obsidian]

That's absolutely disgusting, Daniel. You have a highly distorted, New Agey view of "love." And according to your perspective, Yahweh actually enacted a morality of hatred. You are essentially calling God a liar, because God told the Israelites to "love the Lord your God" and "love your neighbor as yourself," yet he said to do the exact opposite of that filth you just typed. So who has the false definition of "love," God or you?

He said to love your neighbor AS yourself, not more than yourself! And on top of that, God said to love GOD even MORE than yourself OR your neighbor. God said that the destruction of his image (a human body) requires the ultimate penalty (Genesis 9:6). Arg, you are so deluded it's not even funny.

[Cow Poke]

As a young police officer many years ago, I was given a scenario in class and asked by the instructor (a wise old stereotypically Irish "whale" (that's what they used to call the big Irish policemen)) what I would do.

I gave what I thought was a very reasoned and proper response.

He walked over to my desk, bent over to speak to me eye to eye (imagine Sean Connery in The Untouchables lecturing Elliot Ness) and said "young man - take note that THAT which you SAY you will do in a given situation is OFTEN not even a close cousin to that which you DO".

I found that to be very true in the following 5 years of police work.

[Obsidian]

And furthermore, here is a list of verses I've compiled which, imo, completely discredits your philosophy. The majority of these verses are from the NT, but I also included some OT verses to show the continuity of God's morality and God's immutability.


OT morality, combining mercy with justice
----------------------------------------------------------
Genesis 9:6 (blood for blood, because man made in God's image)
Deuteronomy 6:5 (love God)
Deuteronomy 17:18-20 (appoint judges and government officials to secure justice)
Leviticus 19:17 (do not hate your brother in your heart)
Leviticus 19:18b (love neighbor as self)
Isaiah 52:7 (proclaimers of peace are beautiful)
Esther 9:14-16 (Jewish self-defense only following kingly support)
Psalm 34:14 (seek peace)
Lamentations 3:30 (offer your cheek to be struck, suffer disgrace)


Patience/Forgiveness in the OT
---------------------------------------------
Leviticus 19:18a (no revenge OR grudges)
Proverbs 17:14 (drop the matter before a dispute arises)
Proverbs 19:11 (overlook an offense)
Proverbs 20:22 (do not seek revenge)
Proverbs 21:10 (the wicked do not show mercy)
Proverbs 24:29 (do not seek revenge)
Proverbs 29:11 (keep anger under control)


Love for enemies in the OT
-------------------------------------------------------------
Exodus 23:4 (protect your enemy's property)
Exodus 23:5 (help your enemy when he is transporting goods)
Proverbs 24:17-18 (do not rejoice when your enemy suffers)
Proverbs 25:21-22 (feed and give water to your enemy)


Permanence of the OT morality
------------------------------------------
Deuteronomy 4:2 (permanence of the law)
Deuteronomy 12:32 (permenance of the law)
Matthew 5:17-19 (permanence of the law)
Matthew 5:23-24 (references ritual sacrifice)
Matthew 8:3-4 (upholds ceremonial cleansing certification)
Matthew 12:18 (Christ proclaims justice)
Matthew 23:23 (Pharisees should practice justice)
Matthew 22:34-29 (love for God and neighbor sums up the law)
Matthew 23:2-3 (obey the Pharisees and law of Moses)
Matthew 26:17-18 (Jesus celebrates Passover)
Mark 12:28-31 (no command greater than loving God and neighbor)
Mark 14:12-15 (Jesus celebrates Passover)
Luke 2:21 (Jesus gets circumcized)
Luke 10:25-37 (reaffirmation of law requiring love for neighbor)
Luke 16:17 (permanence of the law)
John 1:1-14 (Jesus is God of the OT)
John 5:45-47 (permanence of the law)
Romans 2:14-15 (legitimacy of conscience)
Romans 3:29-31 (permanence of the universal moral law)
Romans 7:7 (God's law necessary to understand his morality)


Believing government officials
-----------------------------------------
Matthew 8:8-10 (centurion with great faith)
Luke 3:14 (soldiers not to rob citizens)
Luke 7:2-10 (centurion believes)
Luke 19:5-9 (tax collector)
John 4:46-53 (government official believes)
Acts 8:26-38 (Ethiopian treasury official)
Acts 10:1-2 (Cornelius the centurion is "devout" and "God-fearing")
Acts 10:1-48 (Cornelius and his "devout soldier" are saved)
Acts 13:12 (a proconsul believes)
Acts 16:25-34 (Roman jailer believes)


Governmental authority
--------------------------------
Matthew 5:9 (peaceMAKERS, not peaceTALKERS)
Matthew 21:12-13 (temple cleansing)
Matthew 22:18-21 (taxes)
Mark 12:16-17 (taxes)
Luke 20:24-25 (taxes)
Luke 23:40-41 (justice in execution)
John 19:10-11 (God gives Pilate his power)
John 18:36 (earthly kings would utilize protection)
Acts 26:28-29 (Paul hopes to convert King Agrippa and the entire court)
Romans 13:1-6 (government is God's servant to do good and punish evildoers)
1 Corinthians 9:6-10 (Compares soldiers to farmers to preachers)


The Future
----------------
Matthew 5:5 (the meek will inherit the earth)
Matthew 12:21 ("nations" will embrace Christ)
Matthew 19:28 (disciples will judge the twelve tribes)
Matthew 22:41-45 (expansion of the kingdom)
Mark 12:35-37 (expansion of kingdom)
Luke 20:41-44 (expansion of kingdom)
1 Corinthians 4:8 (Paul sarcastically wishes that believers were kings)
1 Corinthians 6:2-3 (Christians will judge the world -- and angels)
Revelation 5:10 (Christians will reign on earth)
Revelation 20:4 (Beheaded believers rule for 1000 years)


Lawsuits
-------------
Acts 16:35-40 (Paul blackmails the leaders of Philippi with a legal threat)
Acts 25:11 (Paul appeals to Caesar through the legal system)
1 Corinthians 6:1-6 (ecclesiastical courts)
Matthew 18:15-18 (procedure for ecclesiastical lawsuits and church discipline)


Temporal judgment in the NT
----------------------------------------
Luke 20:13-16 (God's judgment of Jews)
Acts 5:4-11 (Holy Spirit kills two lying believers)
Acts 12:1-19 (Peter escapes prison, even though guards will be executed)
Acts 12:23 (an angel kills Herod)


Metaphors of Jesus
-----------------------------
Matthew 12:29 (strongman will resist robbers)
Matthew 18:32-35 (king imprisons an unmerciful debtor)
Matthew 21:40-41 (landowner kills tenants)
Matthew 24:43 (homeowner would stop thief)
Matthew 24:48-51 (master/Jesus will punish treacherous servant)
Matthew 22:11-13 (king binds and punishes a trespasser)
Mark 3:26-27 (strongman will resist robbers)
Mark 12:6-9 (landowner kills murderers)
Luke 14:28-33 (kings go to war; Jesus describes war alongside tower construction)
Luke 19:26-27 (king kills enemies)
Luke 22:35-38 (two swords)
John 10:1-3 (watchman will guard a sheep pen from robbers)


Forcefulness of Jesus
---------------------------------
Matthew 21:12-13 (temple cleansing)
Mark 12:15 (temple cleansing)
Mark 11:16-17 (Jesus blocks pathway through the temple area)
Luke 19:45 (temple cleansing)
John 2:13-17 (cleansing of temple with whip, emphasizes the animals)
John 17:12 (Jesus "protected" disciples during his ministry)


Sermon on the Mount involved PRINCIPLES, not rules
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
John 18:22-23 (Jesus fails to turn the other cheek)
Matthew 26:63-64 (Jesus testifies under oath)
Revelation 10:5-6 (angel swears by God)


Jesus's reliance on implicit threats of defense
-----------------------------------------------------------------
John 7:12-13 (protection by fear of violence)
Acts 18:9-11 (local believers will protect Paul)

[Daniel Keeran]

And furthermore, here is a list of verses I've compiled which, imo, completely discredits your philosophy. The majority of these verses are from the NT, but I also included some OT verses to show the continuity of God's morality and God's immutability.

Jesus's reliance on implicit threats of defense
-----------------------------------------------------------------
John 7:12-13 (protection by fear of violence)
Acts 18:9-11 (local believers will protect Paul)

OK let's have a look. First of all, if the principles are not repeated in the New Covenant, Christians are not bound by them any more than the prohibition to eat pork, etc., so the OT references are eliminated except those that are fulfilled/repeated in the NT.

OT morality, combining mercy with justice - mercy yes, but justice belongs to God
----------------------------------------------------------
Deuteronomy 6:5 (love God)
Leviticus 19:17 (do not hate your brother in your heart)
Leviticus 19:18b (love neighbor as self)
Isaiah 52:7 (proclaimers of peace are beautiful)
Psalm 34:14 (seek peace)
Lamentations 3:30 (offer your cheek to be struck, suffer disgrace) - Messianic prophecy??

Patience/Forgiveness in the OT - all good for Christians
---------------------------------------------
Leviticus 19:18a (no revenge OR grudges)
Proverbs 17:14 (drop the matter before a dispute arises)
Proverbs 19:11 (overlook an offense)
Proverbs 20:22 (do not seek revenge)
Proverbs 21:10 (the wicked do not show mercy)
Proverbs 24:29 (do not seek revenge)
Proverbs 29:11 (keep anger under control)

Love for enemies in the OT - all good for Christians
-------------------------------------------------------------
Exodus 23:4 (protect your enemy's property)
Exodus 23:5 (help your enemy when he is transporting goods)
Proverbs 24:17-18 (do not rejoice when your enemy suffers)
Proverbs 25:21-22 (feed and give water to your enemy)


Permanence of the OT morality
------------------------------------------
Deuteronomy 4:2 (permanence of the law) sabbath not binding- see Col.2:16
Deuteronomy 12:32 (permenance of the law)
Matthew 5:17-19 (permanence of the law)
Matthew 5:23-24 (references ritual sacrifice)
Matthew 8:3-4 (upholds ceremonial cleansing certification)

below all good for Christians
Matthew 12:18 (Christ proclaims justice)
Matthew 23:23 (Pharisees should practice justice)
Matthew 22:34-29 (love for God and neighbor sums up the law)
Matthew 23:2-3 (obey the Pharisees and law of Moses) the New Covenant not yet in force
Matthew 26:17-18 (Jesus celebrates Passover)
Mark 12:28-31 (no command greater than loving God and neighbor)
Mark 14:12-15 (Jesus celebrates Passover)

Luke 10:25-37 (reaffirmation of law requiring love for neighbor)

John 1:1-14 (Jesus is God of the OT)

Romans 2:14-15 (legitimacy of conscience)
Romans 3:29-31 (permanence of the universal moral law)
Romans 7:7 (God's law necessary to understand his morality)

Believing government officials - after-lives not given, e.g. would they arrest Christians?
-----------------------------------------
Matthew 8:8-10 (centurion with great faith)
Luke 3:14 (soldiers not to rob citizens)
Luke 7:2-10 (centurion believes)
Luke 19:5-9 (tax collector)
John 4:46-53 (government official believes)
Acts 8:26-38 (Ethiopian treasury official)
Acts 10:1-2 (Cornelius the centurion is "devout" and "God-fearing")
Acts 10:1-48 (Cornelius and his "devout soldier" are saved)
Acts 13:12 (a proconsul believes)
Acts 16:25-34 (Roman jailer believes)


Governmental authority - all good
--------------------------------
Matthew 5:9 (peaceMAKERS, not peaceTALKERS)
Matthew 21:12-13 (temple cleansing)
Matthew 22:18-21 (taxes)
Mark 12:16-17 (taxes)
Luke 20:24-25 (taxes)
Luke 23:40-41 (justice in execution)
John 19:10-11 (God gives Pilate his power)
John 18:36 (earthly kings would utilize protection)
Acts 26:28-29 (Paul hopes to convert King Agrippa and the entire court)
Romans 13:1-6 (government is God's servant to do good and punish evildoers)
1 Corinthians 9:6-10 (Compares soldiers to farmers to preachers)


The Future - all good
----------------
Matthew 5:5 (the meek will inherit the earth)
Matthew 12:21 ("nations" will embrace Christ)
Matthew 19:28 (disciples will judge the twelve tribes)
Matthew 22:41-45 (expansion of the kingdom)
Mark 12:35-37 (expansion of kingdom)
Luke 20:41-44 (expansion of kingdom)
1 Corinthians 4:8 (Paul sarcastically wishes that believers were kings)
1 Corinthians 6:2-3 (Christians will judge the world -- and angels)
Revelation 5:10 (Christians will reign on earth)
Revelation 20:4 (Beheaded believers rule for 1000 years)


Lawsuits
-------------
Acts 16:35-40 (Paul blackmails the leaders of Philippi with a legal threat) no legal threat here
Acts 25:11 (Paul appeals to Caesar through the legal system) as a defendant, no plaintiff action
1 Corinthians 6:1-6 (ecclesiastical courts) no threat of force here
Matthew 18:15-18 (procedure for ecclesiastical lawsuits and church discipline) no threat of force


Temporal judgment in the NT no force approved for Christians
----------------------------------------
Luke 20:13-16 (God's judgment of Jews)
Acts 5:4-11 (Holy Spirit kills two lying believers)
Acts 12:1-19 (Peter escapes prison, even though guards will be executed) who will kill them?
Acts 12:23 (an angel kills Herod)


Metaphors of Jesus these prove too much, e.g. ok to be a thief in the night?-----------------------------
Matthew 12:29 (strongman will resist robbers)
Matthew 18:32-35 (king imprisons an unmerciful debtor)
Matthew 21:40-41 (landowner kills tenants)
Matthew 24:43 (homeowner would stop thief)
Matthew 24:48-51 (master/Jesus will punish treacherous servant)
Matthew 22:11-13 (king binds and punishes a trespasser)
Mark 3:26-27 (strongman will resist robbers)
Mark 12:6-9 (landowner kills murderers)
Luke 14:28-33 (kings go to war; Jesus describes war alongside tower construction)
Luke 19:26-27 (king kills enemies)
Luke 22:35-38 (two swords)
John 10:1-3 (watchman will guard a sheep pen from robbers)


Forcefulness of Jesus Jesus had authority, I do not
---------------------------------
Matthew 21:12-13 (temple cleansing)
Mark 12:15 (temple cleansing)
Mark 11:16-17 (Jesus blocks pathway through the temple area)
Luke 19:45 (temple cleansing)
John 2:13-17 (cleansing of temple with whip, emphasizes the animals)
John 17:12 (Jesus "protected" disciples during his ministry)


Sermon on the Mount involved PRINCIPLES, not rules inaccurate observations
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
John 18:22-23 (Jesus fails to turn the other cheek) one can answer wisely, but no retaliation
Matthew 26:63-64 (Jesus testifies under oath) as a defendant
Revelation 10:5-6 (angel swears by God) angels yes, Christians no

[Daniel Keeran]

Daniel Keeran heard screams coming from a grove. He investigates and discovers a man and a woman. She is lying on the ground and screaming. The man's knee is on her stomach, and he is pulling down his pants. She is trying to fight the man off, but she is small compared to the gigantic man.

Lo and behold, there's a baseball bat in front of Daniel. He ignores it, however. He calls out to the man, who startles at that. He scowls at Daniel and gets up to his feet, zipping up his pants quickly. He sees the bat and makes a scramble for it. Daniel could have easily gotten the bat first, but he does not reach for it. Instead, he simply says, "Rape is wrong. Please leave her alone."

The man gets to the bat and picks it up.

Daniel says, "Please go on your way, and leave us alone."

Is that a good way for Daniel to save the woman or himself?

Daniel Keeran heard screams coming from a grove. He investigates and discovers a man and a woman. She is lying on the ground and screaming. The man's knee is on her stomach, and he is pulling down his pants. She is trying to fight the man off, but she is small compared to the gigantic man.

Lo and behold, there's a baseball bat in front of Daniel. He ignores it, however. He immediately goes to the woman and pulls her away from the attacker and they run to safety.

Is that a good way for Daniel to save the woman or himself? Yes, but in the event the victims die, it is better than killing their enemy.

[Obsidian]

Now you're just ignoring all reason. I think I may have to step off into the darkness again, and leave you to your error. But one more rebuttal for the time being:

You've just admitted that all government is good, even though that flatly contradicts your no-violence philosophy. If government is good, then violence is sometimes good. And if it's not sinful, there can be no justification for barring Christians from it. Should Christian police officers help punish other Christians? How about this answer -- Only if they deserve it!

Moreover, your explanation that Jesus emphasized the law only because "The New Covenant was not yet in force" contradicts your entire argument! You are basing your entire theory on Jesus's command to "love your enemies" -- yet now you admit that it was given in an OT context.

It's true that we don't rest on Saturdays (actually, many of us do, but we don't have to). But Hebrews 4 specifically explains why we don't have to: It's because our souls rest from the idea of works-based salvation. And by believing in the gospel, we actually do keep the sabbath because we have rested from our works. The physical Sabbath was always symbolic. But you can't draw from that passage that we should therefore disregard all the morals that God has given us in the past.


Repetition in the NT

Regarding your idea that everything must be repeated in order for it to be binding, I would argue that Jesus DID repeat the commands I'm talking about. He said to love God and neighbor. Those were OT commands, and they summed up the whole law. Genesis 9:6 explains that executing murderers is an act of love for God. You never even attempted to explain how God's definition of "love" can mean completely opposite things at two different points in time.

But let's assume for the momen that you're right, and that despite all the verses I shown you, the NT doesn't reinforce my position at all. To help you understand whether a command really needs to be repeated, why don't you ponder these examples:

1. Is it okay to erect a statue of God the Father and bow down to it, in order to aid your worship and enhance your spiritual life? (The NT only condemns "idolatry" with respect to other gods, as far as I'm aware.)

2. Is it okay for a man to cross-dress, in order to get in touch with his feminine side?

3. Is it okay to have sex with animals?

4. Is it okay to castrate yourself for religious purposes?

5. Should we continue to listen to "prophets" after they have given prophecies which turned out to be false?

6. Is abortion acceptable?

In fact, why do we even read the OT at all if it's obsolete?


And regarding lawsuits...

Paul most certainly did blackmail the Philippian leaders. If you read the context, it's perfectly clear they were scared because they knew they had violated the law. Paul demanded their penance before he would drop the matter.

Furthermore, you draw an arbitrary distinction when you consider Paul's appeal a "defensive" action. The case would be closed if he did not appeal, but instead, he drew it out and sought out the protection of Caesar to vindicate him. The old-fashioned legal term for appellants is actually "Plaintiff-in-error." Besides, your whole argument is that it's wrong to use force, even for defensive actions. And although the Bible doesn't record it, Caesar eventually acquitted Paul of the charge. (This was before the imperial persecution of the church.)

Besides, did Jesus ever defend himself in court?

Furthermore, the 1 Corinthians 6 passage clearly talks about retaliation for wrongs committed. It specifically condemns lawsuits in secular courts between believers. It's quite a stretch to imagine that all lawsuits against secular defendants are similarly condemned...when Paul specifically set up a church court system.

And Jesus never suggested that thievery was okay. Once again you're stretching -- and it's because you know you're wrong. But Jesus does assume that homeowners will protect themselves. ("I come as a thief in the night, so make sure you keep watch for me -- even though if it were a real thief, you obviously wouldn't keep watch but should always let yourself be burglarized!") :lol:

[Augustine2004]

in the event the victims die, it is better than killing their enemy.You do realize that you're thinking that it's better that a Christian and another person die instead of one maybe knocked unconscious.

[Daniel Keeran]

You do realize that you're thinking that it's better that a Christian and another person die instead of one maybe knocked unconscious.

Knocking a person unconscious might kill him; better for christians to die in that case. But what about just breaking their leg or something like that? Yes, the early Christians could have thought of that option, but they didn't. Why? Becsause they were hung up on the notion of suffering and dying like Christ. Escape is an option but not the use of force to deal with evil.

[Daniel Keeran]

Now you're just ignoring all reason. I think I may have to step off into the darkness again, and leave you to your error. But one more rebuttal for the time being:

You've just admitted that all government is good... [/I] :lol:

"If government is good, then violence is sometimes good. And if it's not sinful, there can be no justification for barring Christians from it. Should Christian police officers help punish other Christians? How about this answer -- Only if they deserve it!"
REPLY: Idolatrous Cyrus was God's instrument for good as were Joseph's brothers who sold him into slavery. In Rom.13 Christians are are to obey and pay, not to participate as agents of force.

"Moreover, your explanation that Jesus emphasized the law only because "The New Covenant was not yet in force" contradicts your entire argument! You are basing your entire theory on Jesus's command to "love your enemies" -- yet now you admit that it was given in an OT context."
REPLY: Jesus' teaching on love is repeated by the apostles who were guided into all truth. Jesus was ushering in the kingdom of God and preparing Israel to enter it, so many of his teachings were part of "teaching to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you." (Matt.28)
Repetition in the NT

Regarding your idea that everything must be repeated in order for it to be binding, I would argue that Jesus DID repeat the commands I'm talking about. He said to love God and neighbor. Those were OT commands, and they summed up the whole law. Genesis 9:6 explains that executing murderers is an act of love for God. You never even attempted to explain how God's definition of "love" can mean completely opposite things at two different points in time.
REPLY: Israel was a theocracy, meaning that God gave the laws, judges, kings, armies, and commanded and empowered Israel to conquer militarily. The kingdom of God, the church, is not of this world; Jesus is the Prince of Peace turning swords to ploughshares.

"1. Is it okay to erect a statue of God the Father and bow down to it, in order to aid your worship and enhance your spiritual life? (The NT only condemns "idolatry" with respect to other gods, as far as I'm aware.)"
REPLY: Definitions of things like idolatry, immorality, greed, are carried into the NT from the OT.

2. Is it okay for a man to cross-dress, in order to get in touch with his feminine side?
REPLY: See above.

3. Is it okay to have sex with animals?
REPLY: See above.

4. Is it okay to castrate yourself for religious purposes?
REPLY: This would be adding to God's word in the NT.

5. Should we continue to listen to "prophets" after they have given prophecies which turned out to be false?
REPLY: Covered in NT under false prophets and teachers.

6. Is abortion acceptable?
REPLY: Covered under murder.

In fact, why do we even read the OT at all if it's obsolete?
REPLY: Much in every way, e.g. to know how God worked in the past; the examples of the saints of old; how David praised God, etc.

And regarding lawsuits...

"Paul most certainly did blackmail the Philippian leaders. If you read the context, it's perfectly clear they were scared because they knew they had violated the law. Paul demanded their penance before he would drop the matter."
REPLY: No threat of force here.

Furthermore, you draw an arbitrary distinction when you consider Paul's appeal a "defensive" action. The case would be closed if he did not appeal, but instead, he drew it out and sought out the protection of Caesar to vindicate him. The old-fashioned legal term for appellants is actually "Plaintiff-in-error." Besides, your whole argument is that it's wrong to use force, even for defensive actions. And although the Bible doesn't record it, Caesar eventually acquitted Paul of the charge. (This was before the imperial persecution of the church.)
REPLY: Paul's appeal involved no charges or threat of force against the Jews but fulfilled his mission.

Besides, did Jesus ever defend himself in court?
REPLY: Defense in court does not involve any threat of force.

Furthermore, the 1 Corinthians 6 passage clearly talks about retaliation for wrongs committed. It specifically condemns lawsuits in secular courts between believers. It's quite a stretch to imagine that all lawsuits against secular defendants are similarly condemned...when Paul specifically set up a church court system.
REPLY: Church court does not involve any threat of force.

And Jesus never suggested that thievery was okay. Once again you're stretching -- and it's because you know you're wrong. But Jesus does assume that homeowners will protect themselves. [I]("I come as a thief in the night, so make sure you keep watch for me -- even though if it were a real thief, you obviously wouldn't keep watch but should always let yourself be burglarized!")
REPLY: It's quite alright to lock up your place.

[Augustine2004]

I guess Daniel Keeran would . . .

He's kidnaped. Some time later, three persons are brought to stand before him. His captor says, "This one is a Christian." Pointing to the next person, a woman, he says, "That one is also a Christian." Now he points to the last person. "That one is a dirty doublecrosser, a great honking sinner. He's not a Christian. I want to kill him anyway."

He continues, "I've been reading your replies to Obsidian and Augustine 2004. So, I want to offer you a choice. I'll kill the Christians or that filthy rag. Which choice would you pick, the two Christians to be killed, or that scum of the earth?"

I guess Daniel would choose the Christians to be killed.

[Obsidian]

Well now we've finally gotten somewhere interesting. Real quick, let's recap your last post:

1. You admit that Jesus's "love" command is non-pacifistic, because it's a repetition of the OT and Jesus is under the Mosaic Law

2. You admit that the apostles repeated Jesus's love command (As in Romans 13:9, Galatians 5:14, James 2:8)...

Congratulations, you're no longer a pacifist!

[Augustine2004]

Daniel Keeran, if a church court judge ruled against someone and he disagreed. Furthermore, he refuses to comply with the ruling. What is the court to do then?

[Daniel Keeran]

I guess Daniel Keeran would . . .

He's kidnaped. Some time later, three persons are brought to stand before him. His captor says, "This one is a Christian." Pointing to the next person, a woman, he says, "That one is also a Christian." Now he points to the last person. "That one is a dirty doublecrosser, a great honking sinner. He's not a Christian. I want to kill him anyway."

He continues, "I've been reading your replies to Obsidian and Augustine 2004. So, I want to offer you a choice. I'll kill the Christians or that filthy rag. Which choice would you pick, the two Christians to be killed, or that scum of the earth?"

I guess Daniel would choose the Christians to be killed.

I would not dare to speak for the other Christian or "sinner" but would offer my life for the others and rejoice in the honor of participating in the sufferings of Christ.

[Daniel Keeran]

Daniel Keeran, if a church court judge ruled against someone and he disagreed. Furthermore, he refuses to comply with the ruling. What is the court to do then?

I don't know the circumstances but the use or threat of force is not an option for a church court.

[Daniel Keeran]

Well now we've finally gotten somewhere interesting. Real quick, let's recap your last post:

1. You admit that Jesus's "love" command is non-pacifistic, because it's a repetition of the OT and Jesus is under the Mosaic Law

2. You admit that the apostles repeated Jesus's love command (As in Romans 13:9, Galatians 5:14, James 2:8)...

Congratulations, you're no longer a pacifist!

The prinicples of the messianic kingdom go beyond the law, so love means non-resistance as Jesus goes beyond eye for an eye. The OT taught love but within the context of an earthly theocracy, whereas Jesus taught love within the kingdom that is not of this world John 18.

John 18:36
Jesus 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."

[Augustine2004]

The prinicples of the messianic kingdom go beyond the law, so love means non-resistance as Jesus goes beyond eye for an eye. The OT taught love but within the context of an earthly theocracy, whereas Jesus taught love within the kingdom that is not of this world John 18.

John 18:36
Jesus 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."As far as I can tell, that is non sequitur. I'm not saying you're wrong, but I don't see that your argument is conclusive.

[Obsidian]

You could pretty easily use that logic to justify other abhorent behaviors as well -- such as homosexual marriage, polygyny, non-pagan idol worship, well-intentioned deception, or perhaps even euthanasia. It's all fine as long as they're done in "love," right?

But seriously, how can we understand what love is apart from what God actually taught? In the OT, the law told women to scream out if they were getting raped, to signal others to rescue them. The law condemned murderers above all else, and said that by man shall their blood be shed, that they would be haunted for the rest of their lives. The law commanded the people to establish a government. The law absolved homeowners of guilt if they killed a nighttime burglar. All these specifics demonstrated God's form of "love."

Did Jesus teach people to uphold the law, or did he teach them to obey something else? You're falling back now to your argument that "Jesus abolished all punishment", but a minute ago, you admitted that Jesus was still under the OT law. You admitted that he didn't contradict it, and that he actually encouraged other people to follow it. In fact, you claimed that the moment the morality changed was after Jesus -- when the apostles arrived on the scene. But then I showed you that the apostles repeated Jesus's exact words. So it looks like we're just going around in circles at this point.

I would expect you at least to argue that perhaps all punishment in the OT was symbolic, and that following Jesus's death, punishment was abolished. You would need to lump all forms of judgment into the symbolic Mosaic rituals. The problem with that idea is that your main proof texts are the Sermon on the Mount, which happened prior to Jesus's death. Also, Genesis 9:6 occurred before the Mosaic Law. Finally, whereas Paul made it a point to show the obsolete nature of rituals like the sabbath, circumcision, and dietary laws, he never seemed to mention anything like the abolition of all justice.

Furthermore, I think you are acting a bit like the Pharisees. That is, why is murder even wrong? It's wrong because it destroys God's image. But you've actually suggested to Augustine that you would prefer strict adherence to your nonviolent rule even if violence would actually save lives. You would rather let two innocent people die than violate your rule to kill one guilty person -- one guilty person who very likely will kill others. So you would let men die, and you would let God's image be destroyed when it could be saved. But just as the Sabbath was given for man's benefit, weren't God's rules commanding us to "love" people also given for man's benefit?


Reigning on Earth

Ultimately, though, I doubt you will understand the above arguments -- because you haven't seemed to thus far. I would, however, like to hear your explanation for how believers will judge the world under your philosophy. The BIble says believers will reign on earth. If we're not allowed to judge or rule anything, how can we accomplish that prophecy? I don't think I've yet heard you address that topic.

Specifically, here are the verses I'm referring to:

Matthew 5:5 (the meek will inherit the earth)
Matthew 12:21 ("nations" will embrace Christ)
Matthew 19:28 (disciples will judge the twelve tribes)
Matthew 22:41-45 (expansion of the kingdom)
Mark 12:35-37 (expansion of kingdom)
Luke 20:41-44 (expansion of kingdom)
1 Corinthians 6:2-3 (Christians will judge the world -- and angels)
Revelation 5:10 (Christians will reign on earth)
Revelation 20:4 (Beheaded believers rule for 1000 years)

[Daniel Keeran]

As far as I can tell, that is non sequitur. I'm not saying you're wrong, but I don't see that your argument is conclusive.

The main point that does follow is that love within the context of the kingdom of God that is not of this world, is informed by the love of God demonstrated in the death of Christ for his enemies. This same love has been poured into or hearts by the Holy Spirit. This love did not exist in the OT.

[Daniel Keeran]

You could pretty easily use that logic to justify other abhorent behaviors as well -- such as homosexual marriage, polygyny, non-pagan idol worship, well-intentioned deception, or perhaps even euthanasia. It's all fine as long as they're done in "love," right?

But seriously, how can we understand what love is apart from what God actually taught? In the OT, the law told women to scream out if they were getting raped, to signal others to rescue them. The law condemned murderers above all else, and said that by man shall their blood be shed, that they would be haunted for the rest of their lives. The law commanded the people to establish a government. The law absolved homeowners of guilt if they killed a nighttime burglar. All these specifics demonstrated God's form of "love."

Did Jesus teach people to uphold the law, or did he teach them to obey something else? You're falling back now to your argument that "Jesus abolished all punishment", but a minute ago, you admitted that Jesus was still under the OT law. You admitted that he didn't contradict it, and that he actually encouraged other people to follow it. In fact, you claimed that the moment the morality changed was after Jesus -- when the apostles arrived on the scene. But then I showed you that the apostles repeated Jesus's exact words. So it looks like we're just going around in circles at this point.

I would expect you at least to argue that perhaps all punishment in the OT was symbolic, and that following Jesus's death, punishment was abolished. You would need to lump all forms of judgment into the symbolic Mosaic rituals. The problem with that idea is that your main proof texts are the Sermon on the Mount, which happened prior to Jesus's death. Also, Genesis 9:6 occurred before the Mosaic Law. Finally, whereas Paul made it a point to show the obsolete nature of rituals like the sabbath, circumcision, and dietary laws, he never seemed to mention anything like the abolition of all justice.

Furthermore, I think you are acting a bit like the Pharisees. That is, why is murder even wrong? It's wrong because it destroys God's image. But you've actually suggested to Augustine that you would prefer strict adherence to your nonviolent rule even if violence would actually save lives. You would rather let two innocent people die than violate your rule to kill one guilty person -- one guilty person who very likely will kill others. So you would let men die, and you would let God's image be destroyed when it could be saved. But just as the Sabbath was given for man's benefit, weren't God's rules commanding us to "love" people also given for man's benefit?


Reigning on Earth

Ultimately, though, I doubt you will understand the above arguments -- because you haven't seemed to thus far. I would, however, like to hear your explanation for how believers will judge the world under your philosophy. The BIble says believers will reign on earth. If we're not allowed to judge or rule anything, how can we accomplish that prophecy? I don't think I've yet heard you address that topic.

Specifically, here are the verses I'm referring to:

Matthew 5:5 (the meek will inherit the earth)
Matthew 12:21 ("nations" will embrace Christ)
Matthew 19:28 (disciples will judge the twelve tribes)
Matthew 22:41-45 (expansion of the kingdom)
Mark 12:35-37 (expansion of kingdom)
Luke 20:41-44 (expansion of kingdom)
1 Corinthians 6:2-3 (Christians will judge the world -- and angels)
Revelation 5:10 (Christians will reign on earth)
Revelation 20:4 (Beheaded believers rule for 1000 years)

You could pretty easily use that logic to justify other abhorent behaviors as well -- such as homosexual marriage, polygyny, non-pagan idol worship, well-intentioned deception, or perhaps even euthanasia. It's all fine as long as they're done in "love," right?
REPLY: Love for God and fellowman is informed by the New Covenant and the suffering love of Christ for one's enemies. I do not believe in relative ethics.

But seriously, how can we understand what love is apart from what God actually taught? In the OT, the law told women to scream out if they were getting raped, to signal others to rescue them. The law condemned murderers above all else, and said that by man shall their blood be shed, that they would be haunted for the rest of their lives. The law commanded the people to establish a government. The law absolved homeowners of guilt if they killed a nighttime burglar. All these specifics demonstrated God's form of "love."
REPLY: You continue to want to go back to the OT covenant after I tell you I believe Christians are under a New Covenant sealed by the blood of Christ. Hebrews 8 and Hebrews 9:15-17

Did Jesus teach people to uphold the law, or did he teach them to obey something else? You're falling back now to your argument that "Jesus abolished all punishment", but a minute ago, you admitted that Jesus was still under the OT law. You admitted that he didn't contradict it, and that he actually encouraged other people to follow it. In fact, you claimed that the moment the morality changed was after Jesus -- when the apostles arrived on the scene. But then I showed you that the apostles repeated Jesus's exact words. So it looks like we're just going around in circles at this point.
REPLY: Jesus was preaching the good news about the kingdom that would come. This good news contained moral/ethical principles that would characterize this new kingdom. The elements of the old law that required sacrifice, sabbath observance, tithes and offerings, etc. were nailed to the cross. Also, the new kingdom would not be earthly with a king, civil laws, death penalty for cursing your parents, divinely empowered military, etc.

I would expect you at least to argue that perhaps all punishment in the OT was symbolic, and that following Jesus's death, punishment was abolished. You would need to lump all forms of judgment into the symbolic Mosaic rituals. The problem with that idea is that your main proof texts are the Sermon on the Mount, which happened prior to Jesus's death. Also, Genesis 9:6 occurred before the Mosaic Law. Finally, whereas Paul made it a point to show the obsolete nature of rituals like the sabbath, circumcision, and dietary laws, he never seemed to mention anything like the abolition of all justice.
REPLY: Christians in the new kingdom now leave justice to God in terms of punishment, etc. Romans 12:18-21 Christians use spiritual weapons rather than physical force, 2 Cor. 10:2-4 "...some people who think that we live by the standards of this world. For though we live in the world, we do not wage war as the world does. The weapons we fight with are not the weapons of the world."

Furthermore, I think you are acting a bit like the Pharisees. That is, why is murder even wrong? It's wrong because it destroys God's image. But you've actually suggested to Augustine that you would prefer strict adherence to your nonviolent rule even if violence would actually save lives. You would rather let two innocent people die than violate your rule to kill one guilty person -- one guilty person who very likely will kill others. So you would let men die, and you would let God's image be destroyed when it could be saved. But just as the Sabbath was given for man's benefit, weren't God's rules commanding us to "love" people also given for man's benefit?
REPLY: Christians always died but never killed when attacked. Why? The Jews killed, but Christians did not kill. Why?
Matthew 10:28
"Do not be afraid of those who kill the body but cannot kill the soul. Rather, be afraid of the One who can destroy both soul and body in hell."
Matthew 24:9
"Then you will be handed over to be persecuted and put to death, and you will be hated by all nations because of me."
Luke 22:33
"But he replied, "Lord, I am ready to go with you to prison and to death." (And I am ready to fight and kill for you, Lord?)
Acts 8:1
"And Saul was there, giving approval to his death."

Reigning on Earth

Ultimately, though, I doubt you will understand the above arguments -- because you haven't seemed to thus far. I would, however, like to hear your explanation for how believers will judge the world under your philosophy. The BIble says believers will reign on earth. If we're not allowed to judge or rule anything, how can we accomplish that prophecy? I don't think I've yet heard you address that topic.

Specifically, here are the verses I'm referring to:

Matthew 5:5 (the meek will inherit the earth)
Matthew 12:21 ("nations" will embrace Christ)
Matthew 19:28 (disciples will judge the twelve tribes)
Matthew 22:41-45 (expansion of the kingdom)
Mark 12:35-37 (expansion of kingdom)
Luke 20:41-44 (expansion of kingdom)
1 Corinthians 6:2-3 (Christians will judge the world -- and angels)
Revelation 5:10 (Christians will reign on earth)
Revelation 20:4 (Beheaded believers rule for 1000 years)
REPLY: At the end of time, a new order will come in which the Saviour will become the Judge.

[Obsidian]

Those verses aren't talking about the end of time. They're talking about a millennium reign, before sinners and death have been destroyed. See Revelation 20:7-15. And they make it clear that Jesus isn't the only one doing the judging.

What a cop-out.

[Augustine2004]

The main point that does follow is that love within the context of the kingdom of God that is not of this world, is informed by the love of God demonstrated in the death of Christ for his enemies. This same love has been poured into or hearts by the Holy Spirit. This love did not exist in the OT.So, Moses, for example, did not have this love, even when he was near his death. The major prophets did not. Samuel neither.

[Obsidian]

Yeah, apparently Jesus didn't have that love either because he lived under the hateful law of Moses.

[Obsidian]

You realize that you're commanding people to kill themselves...and this is the best you can come up with?

[gustophersmob]

I have read through this entire thread, and even though I side with Obsidian, I think both Obsidian and Daniel have missed a distinction b/t Christian persecution and self-defense.

I think Obsidian has already responded very well to the often used "turn the other cheek," "love your enemies" passages as being limited within certain contextual bounds. The thing I think has been overlooked is that in every instance cited by Daniel relating to NT Christians not fighting, it is in a case where they are being persecuted for their faith. I think there is much to the argument that the Kingdom is not to be advanced through the sword and violence, hence their lack of fighting back when persecuted/improsoned/martyred.

That being said, I believe there is a big difference b/t persecution for your faith, and randomly being attacked for anything else. I find nothing in the Bible that prohibits me from defending my self and my family if someone randomly breaks into our home to do us harm (if they just want my TV, fine they can take it, I'm referring to the intent to physically harm). I don't see anything in Jesus' commands that say you need to stand there with your hands in your pockets if someone is brutally attacking or raping your wife. I do, however, see evidence that says you shouldn't fight back when being persecuted for your faith (although even this could be an argument from silence...).

As an aside, every time someone brings up how the NT is all love, all I can think of is the passage in Rev 2:5-6 where Jesus is commending the church for hating something He hates.