PDA

View Full Version : "Nor will they train for war anymore"


Amazing Rando
June 14th 2005, 12:44 PM
Here's a paper I just turned in for a seminary course. Hope it's nice and controversial! :grin:

I tried my best to format it for Tweb, but couldn't figure out the best way to render footnotes, so I just put all the footnotes and citations at the end of the paper.

------------------

Nor Will They Train for War Anymore: Isaiah 2:1-5 in Writings of the Early Church

Seven centuries before Jesus, Isaiah of Jerusalem was given a messianic vision of the establishment of the kingdom of God. He saw the advent of God’s ultimate rule of the earth as being an era of utter peace, justice, and shalom. His remarkable vision included scenes of transformative peace, including the expectation that those who formerly were enemies will be reconciled, and those who used to kill one another will be united. This vision did not just encompass human relationships, but those in the natural world as well (Isaiah 11:6-9)!

In the midst of this expectation of a better time, one specific passage stands out above the rest. Isaiah writes:
1 This is what Isaiah son of Amoz saw concerning Judah and Jerusalem:
2 In the last days
the mountain of the LORD's temple will be established
as chief among the mountains;
it will be raised above the hills,
and all nations will stream to it.
3 Many peoples will come and say,
"Come, let us go up to the mountain of the LORD,
to the house of the God of Jacob.
He will teach us his ways,
so that we may walk in his paths."
The law will go out from Zion,
the word of the LORD from Jerusalem.
4 He will judge between the nations
and will settle disputes for many peoples.
They will beat their swords into plowshares
and their spears into pruning hooks.
Nation will not take up sword against nation,
nor will they train for war anymore.
5 Come, O house of Jacob,
let us walk in the light of the LORD.

Isaiah 2:1-5 (which is also strongly echoed if not directly cited in Micah 4:1-3) reflects the belief in a time when wars will cease, and instruments of destruction will be turned into implements of production, harvest, and healing. This vision certainly sounded other-worldly in its original context. At the time of his prophecy, Israel and Judah were facing extinction at the hands of the Assyrian army, God’s judgment for the house of Jacob’s covenantal infidelity, and the hope of peace and justice must have been terribly far from the people’s minds.

Yet in the centuries immediately after Christ, the early church was captivated with the prophet’s vision. Author after author borrowed a phrase, a sentence, or this entire passage from Isaiah to illustrate the new ethic of peace and nonviolence that characterized the lives of Christian disciples. As we shall see, many even linked the typological fulfillment of this passage with the coming of Christ and the birth of the “holy nation” of Christians living as citizens of the kingdom of God.(1)

The first Christian author to explicitly cite Isaiah 2:1-5 is Justin Martyr, in approximately 150 CE. In chapter 39 of his First Apology, he attempts to show the validity of the Christian faith by appealing to the action of the Holy Spirit through prophecy fulfillment. He explains:

And when the Spirit of prophecy speaks as predicting things that are to come to pass, He speaks in this way: "For out of Zion shall go forth the law, and the word of the Lord from Jerusalem. And He shall judge among the nations, and shall rebuke many people; and they shall beat their swords into ploughshares, and their spears into pruning-hooks: nation shall not lift up sword against nation, neither shall they learn war any more." And that it did so come to pass, we can convince you. For from Jerusalem there went out into the world, men, twelve in number, and these illiterate, of no ability in speaking: but by the power of God they proclaimed to every race of men that they were sent by Christ to teach to all the word of God; and we who formerly used to murder one another do not only now refrain from making war upon our enemies, but also, that we may not lie nor deceive our examiners, willingly die confessing Christ.(2)

After citing Isaiah’s prophecy, Justin here explicitly connects its fulfillment with the peaceable actions and teachings of Christ’s apostles, who not only no longer murder and wage war on their enemies, but willingly suffer martyrdom as a witness to their faith. Justin also repeats this affirmation in a similar context in his Dialogue with Trypho.(3) His statement here affirms two essential beliefs common to the leaders of the early church, namely that murder and warfare are expressly forbidden for the followers of Christ, and second, that the shalom-filled lives of the Christians are evidence that the words spoken by Isaiah had indeed come to pass through the work of the servant-king Jesus.

Irenaeus, Bishop of Lyons, shares Justin’s sentiments. One of the targets of his Against Heresies, the followers of Marcion, charged that the God revealed in the Hebrew Scriptures was a lesser and inferior god than Jesus’ Father in the New Testament. To refute this claim, Irenaeus pointed to the use of the Hebrew prophetic literature by the Christian writers of the New Testament, and to the ultimate fulfillment of all the messianic prophecies by Jesus. Of particular note to this study is his use of the Isaiah 2 prophecy:
But from the Lord's advent, the new covenant which brings back peace, and the law which gives life, has gone forth over the whole earth, as the prophets said: "For out of Zion shall go forth the law, and the word of the Lord from Jerusalem; and He shall rebuke many people; and they shall break down their swords into ploughshares, and their spears into pruning-hooks, and they shall no longer learn to fight."(4)

Of note in this first quotation is first, the affirmation that the Lord is the inauguration of the new covenant, and second, that his law has already “gone forth over the whole earth,” and that this law is to be identified with the word of the Lord in Isaiah 2. He continues:
If therefore another law and word, going forth from Jerusalem, brought in such a [reign of] peace among the Gentiles which received it (the word), and convinced, through them, many a nation of its folly, then [only] it appears that the prophets spoke of some other person. But if the law of liberty, that is, the word of God, preached by the apostles (who went forth from Jerusalem) throughout all the earth, caused such a change in the state of things, that these [nations] did form the swords and war-lances into ploughshares, and changed them into pruning-hooks for reaping the corn, [that is], into instruments used for peaceful purposes, and that they are now unaccustomed to fighting, but when smitten, offer also the other cheek, then the prophets have not spoken these things of any other person,
but of Him who effected them. This person is our Lord… (5)

In this section, Irenaeus creates a hypothetical situation in which the accusations of the Marcionites can be substantiated. The evidence to support or deny their view would be in the results lived by the recipients of the prophecy. If they live peaceful, loving lives, then the accusations of the Marcionites are refuted. As proof of this outcome, Irenaeus lifts up, as Justin before him had done, the practical results of the Christian convictions on the lives of believers. Two notable conclusions can be drawn from this affirmation. First- he describes the de facto behavior of the Christians of his day. They have turned their war instruments into tools of cultivation, are “unaccustomed to fighting,” and literally offer the other cheek when they are struck. Second- Irenaeus tells us that the peaceable lives of Christian believers demonstrate that the prophet was indeed typologically speaking of Jesus Christ.

The late 2nd century bishop of Carthage Tertullian was likewise familiar with passage, and used it frequently throughout his work to illustrate the effects of the “law of Christ.” He sought to establish a supercessionist hermeneutical framework with regard to the Mosaic Law and the ethic of Christ. After quoting the Isaiah passage in a treatise against Jewish objections to Christianity, he notes:
Who else, therefore, are understood but we, who, fully taught by the new law, observe these practices,--the old law being obliterated, the coming of whose abolition the action itself demonstrates? For the wont of the old law was to avenge itself by the vengeance of the glaive, and to pluck out "eye for eye," and to inflict retaliatory revenge for injury. But the new law's wont was to point to clemency, and to convert to tranquility the pristine ferocity of "glaives" and "lances," and to remodel the pristine execution of "war" upon the rivals and foes of the law into the pacific actions of "ploughing" and "tilling" the land.(6)

Whatever we may think of his attitude regarding the Hebraic Law, it is clear from this passage that he believes that with Christ, a new era has begun, which is marked not by retaliatory vengeance and retributive justice, but by “tranquility” and “clemency.”
Tertullian also wrote against Marcion and employed much the same strategy as that done by Irenaeus before him. He cited messianic prophecies in the Hebrew Scriptures, and pointed out their fulfillment in the peaceful and enemy-loving lives of the Christians, whom he regarded as the true inheritors of the prophetic fulfillment. One exemplary passage, utilizes Isaiah 2 to just this effect:
The gospel will be this "way," of the new law and the new word in Christ, no longer in Moses. "And He shall judge among the nations," even concerning their error. "And these shall rebuke a large nation," that of the Jews themselves and their proselytes. "And they shall beat their swords into ploughshares, and their spears into pruning-hooks;" in other words, they shall change into pursuits of moderation and peace the dispositions of injurious minds, and hostile tongues, and all kinds of evil, and blasphemy. "Nation shall not lift up sword against nation," shall not stir up discord. "Neither shall they learn war any more," that is, the provocation of hostilities; so that you here learn that Christ is promised not as powerful in war, but pursuing peace…

Verily the apostles have annulled that belief of yours. (7)

Countering Marcion’s assertion that the Hebrew prophets had been inspired by some lesser god, Tertullian takes this ancient prophecy of hope in YHWH and applies it to what has already been accomplished through Jesus Christ. In explicating this passage from Isaiah, he hopes to show the remarkable continuity between the Old Covenant and the New, and to refute those who posited an inferior god. In Tertullian’s view, this continuity is evident in the lives of the Christians of his era, who do not “lift up sword” or “learn war” anymore.

These are but some of the examples of the citations of this particular prophecy by leaders of the early church.(8) What then can be concluded from this study? Extant documents from the leaders of the early church are unanimous in their belief that this prophecy had already been fulfilled through the incarnation of Christ and the followers who patterned their loving, peaceful existence off his life and teachings. The forcefulness with which they argued for the prophetic fulfillment of “all things” through Jesus Christ is quite evident in these brief selections from their work. Jesus has come, they assert, and the “last days” are indeed upon us. The word of the LORD has indeed gone out from Zion, as the prophet declares, and Christians are a people who must convert swords, spears, guns, nuclear weapons, and all other implements and agents of death into life-giving resources. The authentic follower the Way of Jesus will join with the faith and practice described by the early church, and refuse to train for war anymore.

Endnotes:
(1)Hornus, Jean-Michel. It Is Not Lawful for Me to Fight: Early Christian Attitudes Toward Violence, War, and the State. Scottsdale, PA: Herald Press (1980), 85. In this short essay, I am indebted to Hornus’ research. He provided this essay with the jumping-off point and citations from the early church to explore in more detail.
(2)Justin Martyr. First Apology, Chapter 39. Quoted from: http://earlychristianwritings.com/text/justinmartyr-firstapology.html
(3)Justin Martyr. Dialogue with Trypho, Chapters 109-110. http://earlychristianwritings.com/text/justinmartyr-dialoguetrypho.html
(4)Irenaeus. Against Heresies, Book 4, Chapter 34, section 4. Quoted from: http://www.ccel.org/fathers2/ANF-01/anf01-62.htm
(5)Ibid.
(6)Tertullian. An Answer to the Jews, Chapter 3. Quoted from: http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/text/tertullian08.html
(7)Tertullian. Against Marcion, Book 3, Chapter 21. Quoted from: http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/text/tertullian123.html
(8)Origen is another example of an early church father who believed this prophecy had been fulfilled through the coming of Christ. See Against Celsus, Book 5, Chapter 33 for one further example.

spiritmech
June 14th 2005, 12:46 PM
For some reason the cite's don't work completely .. :(
sm

Amazing Rando
June 14th 2005, 12:48 PM
For some reason the cite's don't work completely .. :(
sm

Yeah... not sure exactly how to code them, so I just made them a box and put the footnote number in parentheses after the citation, then the footnote references are at the end of the paper.

spiritmech
June 14th 2005, 12:56 PM
Oh. Now it works. :)
sm

Amazing Rando
June 14th 2005, 01:14 PM
:banana:

Amazing Rando
June 14th 2005, 01:38 PM
I forgot to mention- comments and criticisms are absolutely welcome.

Trinitarian
June 14th 2005, 04:34 PM
Well, one of the things that this essay hits on is how central the practices of the church are to making our theological claims intelligible and plausible. I continually find it remarkable that Justin Martyr felt so certain that he could prove that in Christ the peacable Kingdom had truly come - not on the basis of autonomous reason or anything like that, but based on the practice of the Christian community.

It seems to me that, at least in practice all or at least most arguments for the truth of the Christian faith are legitimated or deligitimated by the practices of the church. This makes it all the more scandalous and tragic to observe the present church's disunity, conformity of culture, complicity with violence, enmeshment in unjust economic systems and overall blindness as to how compromised it in fact is.

But we are not left without hope and the witness of the Spirit, who in unlikely places reforms community, rekindles solidarity and makes present intimations of the Kingdom in lives of saints like Clarence Jordan, Oscar Romero, Lesslie Newbigin and many others. That is some encouragement at least for a church as desperately compromised as the church in the West today.

Amazing Rando
June 15th 2005, 10:14 AM
Hey T, good to see you around again!

Well, one of the things that this essay hits on is how central the practices of the church are to making our theological claims intelligible and plausible. I continually find it remarkable that Justin Martyr felt so certain that he could prove that in Christ the peacable Kingdom had truly come - not on the basis of autonomous reason or anything like that, but based on the practice of the Christian community.

That's precisely what struck me in my inquiry. Justin pointed to the way the disciples lived their lives as evidence of the fulfillment of those excellent prophecies. We're so used to incredulous people who don't think those things are going to come to pass until "the last days," when they fail to realize that the last days began with Jesus! You made an excellent point- the way we live our lives as disciples of Jesus is the most important facet of our Christian witness. We can preach about Jesus all we want, but if our lives and the way we treat one another don't back it up, nobody's going to take the gospel seriously.

It seems to me that, at least in practice all or at least most arguments for the truth of the Christian faith are legitimated or deligitimated by the practices of the church. This makes it all the more scandalous and tragic to observe the present church's disunity, conformity of culture, complicity with violence, enmeshment in unjust economic systems and overall blindness as to how compromised it in fact is.

I observe this same behavior all too-frequently here on Tweb. If you go into the apologetics section and ask the skeptics what their perceptions of christians are from just their interactions on this site, you'll get a largely negative response.

But we are not left without hope and the witness of the Spirit, who in unlikely places reforms community, rekindles solidarity and makes present intimations of the Kingdom in lives of saints like Clarence Jordan, Oscar Romero, Lesslie Newbigin and many others. That is some encouragement at least for a church as desperately compromised as the church in the West today.

Indeed. :yes: Praise the Lord!

I read some essays and books by Newbigin this past year in seminary- very wise man! Is he still living? I'd add to your list Tony Campolo and Ron Sider in particular.

Trinitarian
June 15th 2005, 01:48 PM
I read some essays and books by Newbigin this past year in seminary- very wise man! Is he still living? I'd add to your list Tony Campolo and Ron Sider in particular.

Newbigin died in 1998, I believe. In recent years he has come to be more influential for my thinking than perhaps even Hauerwas. IF you have a chance to get ahold of it, I would really recommend Geoffery Wainwright's biography of him, Lesslie Newbigin: A Theological Life. Newbigin wrote some books that I think are unequaled since Barth and even more interesting to me is the work that he did in the Church of South India which led to the unification of virtually all the churches there. It's truly an amazing story.

Jezz
June 16th 2005, 01:50 AM
Here's a paper I just turned in for a seminary course. Hope it's nice and controversial! :grin:
I didn't see anything too controversial. I'm just glad that you're finally reading the Fathers as well as the Bible. :smile:

Just one comment:

The late 2nd century bishop of Carthage Tertullian was likewise familiar with passage...
AFAIK, Tertullian was a priest at Carthage, but not a bishop. At least, that's what the Catholic Encyclopedia says (see here (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/14520c.htm)).

Amazing Rando
June 16th 2005, 12:31 PM
I didn't see anything too controversial. I'm just glad that you're finally reading the Fathers as well as the Bible. :smile:

They're certainly extremely helpful as aids in interpreting the Bible in its proper cultural and spiritual context, but I still hold them a bit at arms length as I do all other postcanonical writings.

What's controversial about my paper is the exhortation to pacifism. What I've discovered is that the Antenicene Fathers were almost without exception morally opposed to warfare and killing others because of the ethic taught by and imitation Christ. The pacifism is particularly pronounced in Justin, Irenaeus, Tertullian (especially), Hippolytus, Origen, and others.


Just one comment:


AFAIK, Tertullian was a priest at Carthage, but not a bishop. At least, that's what the Catholic Encyclopedia says (see here (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/14520c.htm)).

Thank you! I was under the assumption that St. Cyprian was his successor. Is this the case?

Amazing Rando
July 26th 2005, 02:16 PM
I've just completed an expanded version of this paper in which I research the original 7th century context of the prophecy and muse a bit on its rammifications for today in addition to the early church fathers' comments I cited above. If anyone's interested I can email it to you if you give me your email address.

Tfbandie
July 27th 2005, 10:41 AM
The word of the LORD has indeed gone out from Zion, as the prophet declares, and Christians are a people who must convert swords, spears, guns, nuclear weapons, and all other implements and agents of death into life-giving resources. The authentic follower the Way of Jesus will join with the faith and practice described by the early church, and refuse to train for war anymore. :thumb:

Amazing Rando
July 27th 2005, 02:07 PM
The word of the LORD has indeed gone out from Zion, as the prophet declares, and Christians are a people who must convert swords, spears, guns, nuclear weapons, and all other implements and agents of death into life-giving resources. The authentic follower the Way of Jesus will join with the faith and practice described by the early church, and refuse to train for war anymore. :thumb:

:smile: WHat do you think of the paper's basic premise- that Isaiah 2:1-5 is not something to wait for in the far-off future like many believe, but rather has been fulfilled with the Incarnation and Christians need to live like it now?

OfficialPro
August 6th 2005, 03:44 AM
I'm pretty sure that whatever "last days" those are haven't happened yet. This is a prophecy, not a commandment.

Amazing Rando
August 7th 2005, 05:45 PM
I'm pretty sure that whatever "last days" those are haven't happened yet.

It's been the historical belief of the church that we are living in the last days right now and have been ever since the resurrection of Jesus Christ. My paper is merely drawing ethical implications from this fact. How are we to live in the last days?

Besides the numerous church fathers I could cite to that effect, the scriptural witness also firmly attests to the fact that we've been living in the last days since Christ. For example, in Acts 2:17, Peter cites Joel's prophecy of the "last days" as explaining what has already happened during the Pentecost event. Hebrews 1:2 talks about God speaking to us through Jesus in "these last days." In addition, James 5:3 speaks about how some have already hoarded their wealth "in the last days." The last days spoken of by the Old Testament prophets certainly were far-off for them in their historical context, but they're current and present for us today, living on the other side of the Christ event as we do.

This is a prophecy, not a commandment.

It [i]is[/b] a prophecy. But verse five is a commandment or an ethical exhortation to "walk in the light of the LORD." Isaiah wanted his hearers to live a certain way in light of what the Lord would do in the future. But as my paper shows, the early church believed this prophecy to have already come to pass (at least in part) because of the peaceful lives exhibited by the Christians of their era. This has profound implications for how we live our lives today as believers.

Nanny
August 11th 2005, 06:26 PM
[QUOTE=Amazing Rando]It's been the historical belief of the church that we are living in the last days right now and have been ever since the resurrection of Jesus Christ. My paper is merely drawing ethical implications from this fact. How are we to live in the last days?

..........

Rando, Your Isaiah passage as well as the scripture you quoted on the previous thread about "beating swords into plowshares... etc.," from Isa.2, all have to do with Christ's return to the earth, when "all nations will stream to (Jerusalem)," ... where they will be taught His ways, ... and "He will judge between the nations and will settle disputes for many peoples." Isa.2:4(a) Guess we should just respectfully agree to disagree; our interpretation is different, so our applications (ethical implications) will differ.

.........

and Rando said:
It [i]is[/b] a prophecy. But verse five is a commandment or an ethical exhortation to "walk in the light of the LORD."

......

Rando, let me respectfully quote the entire verse (Isa.2:5) you quoted only in part: "Come, O house of Jacob, let us walk in the light of the Lord." I agree that it is a principle taught in scriptures that all should "walk in the light of the Lord," but is that the point of this passage?

and will someone please tell me how to box in those quotes?

Amazing Rando
August 12th 2005, 12:49 PM
..........

Rando, Your Isaiah passage as well as the scripture you quoted on the previous thread about "beating swords into plowshares... etc.," from Isa.2, all have to do with Christ's return to the earth, when "all nations will stream to (Jerusalem)," ... where they will be taught His ways, ... and "He will judge between the nations and will settle disputes for many peoples." Isa.2:4(a) Guess we should just respectfully agree to disagree; our interpretation is different, so our applications (ethical implications) will differ.

That may be! Can you share your own view on the verses in question? I'd love to discuss it further. :smile:



Rando, let me respectfully quote the entire verse (Isa.2:5) you quoted only in part: "Come, O house of Jacob, let us walk in the light of the Lord." I agree that it is a principle taught in scriptures that all should "walk in the light of the Lord," but is that the point of this passage?

Here's what I was getting at in the paper- the prophecy in Isaiah 2:1-4 is about what will happen in the future when God himself would make even warfare obsolete for His people (at least, the future from when Isaiah was writing). Verse five is not part of the prophecy, but an ethical exhortation to live life in light of what the Lord would do in the future.

The early church, as I showed, universally believed that the establishment of the Kingdom of God in Christ's first coming was the fulfillment of Isaiah 2:1-4.

and will someone please tell me how to box in those quotes?

Easiest way is this- use quote tags. Make sure the text you're quoting is isolated from the rest of the text in the post and surround it with quote tags, which look like this: Hi there!.

By entering the text as I just demonstrated above, you'll get a result that looks like this: Hi there!

Nanny
August 12th 2005, 03:51 PM
That may be! Can you share your own view on the verses in question? I'd love to discuss it further. :smile:





Here's what I was getting at in the paper- the prophecy in Isaiah 2:1-4 is about what will happen in the future when God himself would make even warfare obsolete for His people (at least, the future from when Isaiah was writing). Verse five is not part of the prophecy, but an ethical exhortation to live life in light of what the Lord would do in the future.

The early church, as I showed, universally believed that the establishment of the Kingdom of God in Christ's first coming was the fulfillment of Isaiah 2:1-4.



Easiest way is this- use quote tags. Make sure the text you're quoting is isolated from the rest of the text in the post and surround it with quote tags, which look like this: .

By entering the text as I just demonstrated above, you'll get a result that looks like this:
thanks for the tips on the quote tags. In the meantime, i've been helped as well by Mark on another thread. So in my next post, I'll practice on you.

Nanny
August 12th 2005, 04:11 PM
That may be! [QUOTE]Can you share your own view on the verses in question? I'd love to discuss it further. :smile:

I take a more literal approach. Lately, I've been reading some of Dee Dee's preterist views and they have value but to spiritualize all O.T. prophecies still gives me trouble. It seems apparent that Isa. 2:1-4 has not yet been fulfilled and spiritualizing the passage seems a "stretch." I will grant that verse 5 may have been spoken as an exhortation to those of the house of Jacob in Isaiah's day.


Here's what I was getting at in the paper- the prophecy in Isaiah 2:1-4 is about what will happen in the future when God himself would make even warfare obsolete for His people (at least, the future from when Isaiah was writing).

If you interpret vv.1-4 to mean "what will happen in the future when God himself would make even warfare obsolete for His people", do you believe that has happened, or is in the process of happening?

The early church, as I showed, universally believed that the establishment of the Kingdom of God in Christ's first coming was the fulfillment of Isaiah 2:1-4.

I would have to do a lot more reading on all the writings of the early church to discuss this with you on equal footing. Could we just stick to interpreting the scripture?

Amazing Rando
August 12th 2005, 04:23 PM
[QUOTE=Amazing Rando]That may be! :smile:

I take a more literal approach. Lately, I've been reading some of Dee Dee's preterist views and they have value but to spiritualize all O.T. prophecies still gives me trouble. It seems apparent that Isa. 2:1-4 has not yet been fulfilled and spiritualizing the passage seems a "stretch." I will grant that verse 5 may have been spoken as an exhortation to those of the house of Jacob in Isaiah's day.

I'd agree with you that "spiritualizing" everything in the OT does present significant problems. But what are all the Messianic prophecies throughout the OT that we believe were fulfilled in the person, advent, and mission of Jesus? Many of them were not fulfilled in a "literal" way at all, yet the gospel writers were convinced that they found their fulfillment in Jesus.

Basically, I believe that Jesus fulfilled the law and the prophets as he said, and I'm just taking it to its logical extreme (and exploring the writings of the early church to see if they agree with me).

If you interpret vv.1-4 to mean "what will happen in the future when God himself would make even warfare obsolete for His people", do you believe that has happened, or is in the process of happening?

You've hit upon one of my main points- yes, I do believe they've occured. Did you read the quotes by the early church leaders I cited? They lived in the pre-Constantinian days when the entire church held strictly to a pacifistic and "love for enemies" ethic, refusing to "train for war" as it were. Over and over, the leaders of the early church cite this prophecy and state that it has found its fulfillment in the non-violent ways of the Christians of their era.



I would have to do a lot more reading on all the writings of the early church to discuss this with you on equal footing. Could we just stick to interpreting the scripture?

Certainly. But please do peruse the quotes I gave in my OP- they'll give you some insight into the historical argument I'm trying to present. :yes:

Nanny
August 12th 2005, 05:45 PM
I'd agree with you that "spiritualizing" everything in the OT does present significant problems. But what are all the Messianic prophecies throughout the OT that we believe were fulfilled in the person, advent, and mission of Jesus? Many of them were not fulfilled in a "literal" way at all, yet the gospel writers were convinced that they found their fulfillment in Jesus.


Jesus told His disciples, "No one knows about that day or hour, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but only the Father...." (Matt.24:36). What is "that day" of which He spoke?

Do you believe Jesus will physically and literally return to earth, as promised in Acts 1:11(b)?

Amazing Rando
August 12th 2005, 08:32 PM
Jesus told His disciples, "No one knows about that day or hour, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but only the Father...." (Matt.24:36). What is "that day" of which He spoke?

Do you believe Jesus will physically and literally return to earth, as promised in Acts 1:11(b)?

Sure do. As the old affirmation goes, "Christ has died. Christ is risen. Christ will come again."

Why do you ask?

Nanny
August 12th 2005, 08:57 PM
Sure do. As the old affirmation goes, "Christ has died. Christ is risen. Christ will come again."

Why do you ask?

just trying to get a picture of your view of the future.
do you agree that the prophets predict a time of great judgment, called "the day of the Lord?" (Amos 5:18-20) This describes a day of darkness, not light, etc... (cf. Isa. 2:12 and surrounding verses). I believe this day of judgment and darkness coincides with Christ's coming again, and it hasn't happened yet. Are we still together on this?

Guess what i'm leading up to is there will be some great change that will take place before the time of "peace" described in Isa.2:-4.

Nanny
August 12th 2005, 09:10 PM
just trying to get a picture of your view of the future.
do you agree that the prophets predict a time of great judgment, called "the day of the Lord?" (Amos 5:18-20) This describes a day of darkness, not light, etc... (cf. Isa. 2:12 and surrounding verses). I believe this day of judgment and darkness coincides with Christ's coming again, and it hasn't happened yet. Are we still together on this?

Guess what i'm leading up to is there will be some great change that will take place before the time of "peace" described in Isa.2:-4.
Don't know if there'll be time for me to discuss for a while cause we're going to be busy all day tomorrow. I do realize that your case for passificism is built to a great degree on the early writings of the church fathers. Just one thought on that is, if you are correct, it could be that they were looking through the lense of their own time.
And secondly, my sanctified common sense tells me that it would be terribly wrong (sinful) if one observed mistreatment of another human being, say a child, and would stand by and do nothing. Same would go for a nation in defending itself. This may be the rambling of a simple mind, but I'll put it out there while I'm thinking of it.

Peace! :-)

Amazing Rando
August 12th 2005, 09:15 PM
just trying to get a picture of your view of the future.
do you agree that the prophets predict a time of great judgment, called "the day of the Lord?" (Amos 5:18-20) This describes a day of darkness, not light, etc... (cf. Isa. 2:12 and surrounding verses). I believe this day of judgment and darkness coincides with Christ's coming again, and it hasn't happened yet. Are we still together on this?

Sure- the day of final judgment. It hasn't happened yet. However, it might be good to point out that many times when the "day of the Lord" is in view in the Old Testament, the prophets probably weren't speaking of the end of the world, but rather a day of God's judgment that would come upon the people of Israel in the very near future, the consequence of their disbelief and unfaithfulness in him.

As an example, I'd note that the prophecy of the day of the Lord in Isaiah 2 extends into chapter 3 with the pronouncement of judgment on Judah and Jerusalem.

But certainly the New Testament clearly looks forward to the day of judgment.

Guess what i'm leading up to is there will be some great change that will take place before the time of "peace" described in Isa.2:-4.

I follow. But isn't it interesting that the time of peace in Isaiah 2:1-4 is spoken of before the discussion of the day of judgment beginning in 2:6?

Amazing Rando
August 12th 2005, 09:27 PM
Don't know if there'll be time for me to discuss for a while cause we're going to be busy all day tomorrow.

Hey no sweat! I'll be gone for an entire week starting tomorrow!


I do realize that your case for passificism is built to a great degree on the early writings of the church fathers.

Not entirely. They're my secondary sources. First and foremost are the injunctions in Scripture- particularly from Jesus, Paul, and Peter.

Just one thought on that is, if you are correct, it could be that they were looking through the lense of their own time.

I like to think they were looking through the lens of Christ...

And secondly, my sanctified common sense tells me that it would be terribly wrong (sinful) if one observed mistreatment of another human being, say a child, and would stand by and do nothing. Same would go for a nation in defending itself. This may be the rambling of a simple mind, but I'll put it out there while I'm thinking of it.

Peace! :-)

I agree entirely! But pacifism doesn't mean "stand by and do nothing." Not in the least! If you're interested, check out this selection (http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showpost.php?p=621819&postcount=17) by Martin Luther King Jr. where he explains the underlying principles of his Christian pacifism.

Also helpful is this essay (http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?t=46384) also by Martin Luther King about what loving your enemies really means.

Anyway, blessings on your busy day tomorrow. I won't be back for at least a week. :hi:

Nanny
August 12th 2005, 09:53 PM
Sure- the day of final judgment. It hasn't happened yet. However, it might be good to point out that many times when the "day of the Lord" is in view in the Old Testament, the prophets probably weren't speaking of the end of the world, but rather a day of God's judgment that would come upon the people of Israel in the very near future, the consequence of their disbelief and unfaithfulness in him.

As an example, I'd note that the prophecy of the day of the Lord in Isaiah 2 extends into chapter 3 with the pronouncement of judgment on Judah and Jerusalem.

But certainly the New Testament clearly looks forward to the day of judgment.

"The Day of the Lord" is portrayed as a unique and terrible time of judgment by numerous O.T. prophets, e.g., Isaiah, Amos, Jeremiah, Daniel, etc. also in the Olivet Discourse (which the preterists would deny, I guess).



I follow. But isn't it interesting that the time of peace in Isaiah 2:1-4 is spoken of before the discussion of the day of judgment beginning in 2:6?

This is not unusual. It happens a lot in prophecy to have periods of time out of order.

Nanny
August 12th 2005, 09:56 PM
Hey no sweat! I'll be gone for an entire week starting tomorrow!




Not entirely. They're my secondary sources. First and foremost are the injunctions in Scripture- particularly from Jesus, Paul, and Peter.



I like to think they were looking through the lens of Christ...



I agree entirely! But pacifism doesn't mean "stand by and do nothing." Not in the least! If you're interested, check out this selection (http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showpost.php?p=621819&postcount=17) by Martin Luther King Jr. where he explains the underlying principles of his Christian pacifism.

Also helpful is this essay (http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?t=46384) also by Martin Luther King about what loving your enemies really means.

Anyway, blessings on your busy day tomorrow. I won't be back for at least a week. :hi:
Rando, and blessings back to ya. It should keep us humble to think of Paul's statement in Romans, "who can know the mind of the Lord....?" It's been enjoyable.
Maybe we can pick up later.

GreatWhiteHype2
August 16th 2005, 11:29 AM
Rando,

I'm surprised more people didn't hop on this thread and "have at ya," as some would say. I've followed the line of reasoning from all who have contributed to this thread, and there've been some interesting points made.

As far as my commenting, I find it very mystifying as I get older and older as to the continual emphasis of the church at large (hope I'm not painting too broad of a stroke here) on just war...which more often than not creates a slippery slope where the church finds itself wholeheartedly embracing the "just war" approach of the nation-state its leaders happen to be a part of. This willingness to compromise and embroil itself directly in the secular realm led to situations such as the nearly complete majority of German theologians in pre-WWII embracing the rise of Hitler and his policies, and the situation as we see it in America today, where many churches fly the American flag loud and proud either on the front lawn or (most regrettably) the front of the sanctuary during worship.

The Biblical witness (especially the New Testament) is literally running over with practical instruction for how we are to live as people of God, and the example of the early church fathers is one that further solidifies the case of how we are to live and communicate the Christian ethic. I find it amusing that in typical conversations with those who embrace war as a justifiable means of resolving conflict, they often ask, "What about Romans 13 and submission to the authorities?" as if that is a trump card...forgetting that Paul was the very man who wrote very forcefully in Ephesians 6:12 that "our struggle is not against flesh and blood, but against the rulers, 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."

I'm so glad that the submission of my life to the lordship of Christ allows me to live without fear, and demands that I love all persons unconditionally...that sure as heck doesn't mean I'll love perfectly, but gives me a high calling I wouldn't otherwise have. :smile:

I'm, of course, very open to discussion on this issue, and couldn't agree more that it is wrong to stand by when others are abused, mistreated,and killed unjustly. For an example of a group sticking their neck out for Christ and their brothers and sisters in this world, check out a group called the Christian Peacemaker Teams. They formed after a rousing address at the Mennonite World Conference by a certain Ron Sider you talked about above.

Amazing Rando
August 19th 2005, 08:33 PM
Rando,

I'm surprised more people didn't hop on this thread and "have at ya," as some would say. I've followed the line of reasoning from all who have contributed to this thread, and there've been some interesting points made.

As far as my commenting, I find it very mystifying as I get older and older as to the continual emphasis of the church at large (hope I'm not painting too broad of a stroke here) on just war...which more often than not creates a slippery slope where the church finds itself wholeheartedly embracing the "just war" approach of the nation-state its leaders happen to be a part of. This willingness to compromise and embroil itself directly in the secular realm led to situations such as the nearly complete majority of German theologians in pre-WWII embracing the rise of Hitler and his policies, and the situation as we see it in America today, where many churches fly the American flag loud and proud either on the front lawn or (most regrettably) the front of the sanctuary during worship.

The Biblical witness (especially the New Testament) is literally running over with practical instruction for how we are to live as people of God, and the example of the early church fathers is one that further solidifies the case of how we are to live and communicate the Christian ethic. I find it amusing that in typical conversations with those who embrace war as a justifiable means of resolving conflict, they often ask, "What about Romans 13 and submission to the authorities?" as if that is a trump card...forgetting that Paul was the very man who wrote very forcefully in Ephesians 6:12 that "our struggle is not against flesh and blood, but against the rulers, 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."

I'm so glad that the submission of my life to the lordship of Christ allows me to live without fear, and demands that I love all persons unconditionally...that sure as heck doesn't mean I'll love perfectly, but gives me a high calling I wouldn't otherwise have. :smile:

I'm, of course, very open to discussion on this issue, and couldn't agree more that it is wrong to stand by when others are abused, mistreated,and killed unjustly. For an example of a group sticking their neck out for Christ and their brothers and sisters in this world, check out a group called the Christian Peacemaker Teams. They formed after a rousing address at the Mennonite World Conference by a certain Ron Sider you talked about above.

Hey GWH! Awesome to see you around- I'll be able to drop in on the discussion again more tomorrow. Check ya then!

Amazing Rando
August 21st 2005, 02:34 PM
Rando,

I'm surprised more people didn't hop on this thread and "have at ya," as some would say. I've followed the line of reasoning from all who have contributed to this thread, and there've been some interesting points made.

:smile: This paper was something I wrote for Gerald's "Biblical Foundations for Peacemaking." I've the final version (some 15 pages) if you're interested in checking out the completed draft! :deal:

As far as my commenting, I find it very mystifying as I get older and older as to the continual emphasis of the church at large (hope I'm not painting too broad of a stroke here) on just war...which more often than not creates a slippery slope where the church finds itself wholeheartedly embracing the "just war" approach of the nation-state its leaders happen to be a part of. This willingness to compromise and embroil itself directly in the secular realm led to situations such as the nearly complete majority of German theologians in pre-WWII embracing the rise of Hitler and his policies, and the situation as we see it in America today, where many churches fly the American flag loud and proud either on the front lawn or (most regrettably) the front of the sanctuary during worship.

The Biblical witness (especially the New Testament) is literally running over with practical instruction for how we are to live as people of God, and the example of the early church fathers is one that further solidifies the case of how we are to live and communicate the Christian ethic.

:thumb: Totally agree, but that's a matter for another thread I'm afraid.

I find it amusing that in typical conversations with those who embrace war as a justifiable means of resolving conflict, they often ask, "What about Romans 13 and submission to the authorities?" as if that is a trump card...forgetting that Paul was the very man who wrote very forcefully in Ephesians 6:12 that "our struggle is not against flesh and blood, but against the rulers, 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."

Or what about 2 Corinthians 10:3-4...

3For though we live in the world, we do not wage war as the world does. 4The weapons we fight with are not the weapons of the world. On the contrary, they have divine power to demolish strongholds. :smile:

I'm so glad that the submission of my life to the lordship of Christ allows me to live without fear, and demands that I love all persons unconditionally...that sure as heck doesn't mean I'll love perfectly, but gives me a high calling I wouldn't otherwise have. :smile:

Man I look forward to getting back to classes with you! :teeth:

I'm, of course, very open to discussion on this issue, and couldn't agree more that it is wrong to stand by when others are abused, mistreated,and killed unjustly. For an example of a group sticking their neck out for Christ and their brothers and sisters in this world, check out a group called the Christian Peacemaker Teams. They formed after a rousing address at the Mennonite World Conference by a certain Ron Sider you talked about above.

CPT rules! Check out this thread (http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?t=58691&highlight=Christian+Peacemaker+Teams) from Political Science where we discussed them at length.

sambo
October 28th 2005, 09:41 PM
Hey Rando! Why all the contadictions? It is clear that Christ was a devout pacifist with his "turning the other cheek" and "love thy enemy" talk, but what of God? In Samuel, Numbers, and Deuteronomy there is God commanding his people to wage war and show no mercy.

Personally, I think people that have actually seen the atrocities of war are less likely to celebrate it and romanticize it. It is good to see veterans of the Iraq and Veitnam wars actively protesting this war in Iraq.

Amazing Rando
November 3rd 2005, 02:38 PM
Hiya sambo, sorry I missed your post till now! I was away over the weekend and missed out on a lot here on tweb.

Hey Rando! Why all the contadictions? It is clear that Christ was a devout pacifist with his "turning the other cheek" and "love thy enemy" talk, but what of God? In Samuel, Numbers, and Deuteronomy there is God commanding his people to wage war and show no mercy.

1 Peter 2:21-25 has some insights in that regard. Basically I don't diminish the violence of the Old Testament at all- it's as much of a question for pacifists as it is for any other Christian. God is the Holy One of Israel, and has a prerogative to uphold justice. But Jesus Christ, the incarnate Word, taught a different way. I believe the key to understanding this quandry comes in 1 Peter 2:23, where it says that "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."

It was faith in the sovereign Lord of the Universe to enact ultimate justice that enabled Jesus to endure the pain, shame, insults, and violence done to him without retaliating, and as Peter just got done saying, this is an example for us, that in suffering servanthood, we might "follow in his steps" (2:21). Jesus' faith in God here depended on his knowledge that God will act justly.

Personally, I think people that have actually seen the atrocities of war are less likely to celebrate it and romanticize it. It is good to see veterans of the Iraq and Veitnam wars actively protesting this war in Iraq.

You bet dude. I pray that the Iraq war vet who's running for office in Ohio on an anti-war platform will be successful in garnering support for peace among the ardently pro-war district in which he's running.