Violence

[Sapper Woody]

That's an interesting way of looking at it. But you are making an indirect inference similar to what you accuse me of. You are inferring that stewardship of our body must include defending it when scripture never says that. I would also say the teaching that we are to love our enemies without exception is far more than an indirect inference.

This also doesn't account for scriptures view of martyrdom. It is an honorable, praiseworthy thing to die for the faith. If stewardship of the body as the Spirit's temple was grounds for violently defending yourself, then the martyrs in scripture and the apostles were wrong for not doing so. There is no evidence, for example, that Stephen tried to defend himself in Acts 7. If you are right then he was wrong, but the Bible says he was actually given a vision of the glory of God and Jesus standing to receive him into his presence. Instead of disapproving Stephen's actions, he was rewarded!

Being a martyr and getting killed by a ravening lunatic for no reason other than he's blood thirsty are two different things entirely. If I have a choice to die or denounce God, I'd like to think I'd choose death. But if I have a choice between dying and living at the whim of a psycho, I will definitely choose life.

Especially if my family are in danger. If it's his life or my family's, I am going to protect what God has entrusted to me with my life.

 

[RLBosley]

Being a martyr and getting killed by a ravening lunatic for no reason other than he's blood thirsty are two different things entirely. If I have a choice to die or denounce God, I'd like to think I'd choose death. But if I have a choice between dying and living at the whim of a psycho, I will definitely choose life.

Especially if my family are in danger. If it's his life or my family's, I am going to protect what God has entrusted to me with my life.

But the scriptures affirmation of the martyrs actions still overturns your thoughts on defending your body as the temple of the Holy Spirit. That was my point, not that there is some equality to dying as a martyr to dying in a mugging (for example).

I understand what you're saying and I used to say exactly the same, that I'd kill to protect my family or really even myself. But Jesus commands us to love our enemies. He never gives any exception or escape clauses. It doesn't matter if it's someone persecuting you for your faith, or some lunatic breaking into your home, that person is an enemy and Jesus says to love them. You cannot honestly obey that command to love them if you kill them. But again, I'm not saying you do nothing. I think your example you provided earlier is exactly what we are to do; intervene and if necessary take the violence ourselves.

That's why I tell my wife I'd die for her in a heartbeat, but I won't kill for her.

Jesus said:

Jhn 15:13 NASB - "Greater love has no one than this, that one lay down his life for his friends.​

We lay down our live for those we love, we don't take the lives of others, even if they are our enemy.

 

[Sapper Woody]

But the scriptures affirmation of the martyrs actions still overturns your thoughts on defending your body as the temple of the Holy Spirit. That was my point, not that there is some equality to dying as a martyr to dying in a mugging (for example).

I understand what you're saying and I used to say exactly the same, that I'd kill to protect my family or really even myself. But Jesus commands us to love our enemies. He never gives any exception or escape clauses. It doesn't matter if it's someone persecuting you for your faith, or some lunatic breaking into your home, that person is an enemy and Jesus says to love them. You cannot honestly obey that command to love them if you kill them. But again, I'm not saying you do nothing. I think your example you provided earlier is exactly what we are to do; intervene and if necessary take the violence ourselves.

That's why I tell my wife I'd die for her in a heartbeat, but I won't kill for her.

Jesus said:

Jhn 15:13 NASB - "Greater love has no one than this, that one lay down his life for his friends.​

We lay down our live for those we love, we don't take the lives of others, even if they are our enemy.

You might think of this as a crude analogy, and as all analogies, there are holes. But I love my children. I also believe in corporal punishment (meted out in a Godly fashion, not out of anger). I do not cease to love my kids when I deal with their actions through physical discipline. I did not hate that man that night he attempted to mug me. And, being a soldier, I did not hate those Afghans (Afghanies? I can't remember right now which is the respectful term. Don can help me out here). In fact, I pitied them. I was sad it came to that.

This is going to sound harsh. Very harsh. But please believe me when I say that this is not a personal attack, but hopefully an eye opening question. Who do you love more, your enemy or your wife? If you love your enemy to the point of allowing your wife to be raped or killed because you got killed taking a bullet for her but refused to neutralize him, then I'll let you fill in the rest. I am honestly not trying to attack, offend, or upset you. Just trying to get you to think this through to its conclusion.

Loving someone does not mean that you allow them to do evil unopposed. It is forgiving, it is charitable, but it is not a license to do as you will. If someone shot me and made me a paraplegic, I'd like to think that I'm big enough to forgive him. That's love. Letting him shoot me without a struggle is not love. Letting him harm my family because I will not kill him is not love. Forgiving him for trying is love. Calling the doctor and possibly even paying for his medical expenses afterwards; this is love. Putting some quikclot in a bullet wound so he doesn't die; this is love.

As with disciplining a child, love is not inherently nonviolent. As spanking my child, then hugging them to let them know our relationship is restored is love, so is becoming violent with an attacker, and then treating them with kindness.

Love your enemies. Pray for those that persecute you. But Christ never told us to go to death willingly. If this is what you believe, then by all means, live it. I wish no ill on you or your house. But that type of decision should not be made lightly, or on your own. Get input from those who would suffer from your inaction, namely your wife.

 

[pinoybaptist]

back in the late 60's I had a sensei who told us after a particularly rigid session where he honed our street fighting techniques that when confronted by a bully, or bullies, we should run the other way, away from the instigators.
Of course that got us all lit up.
What ?
After all this hard work and pain you tell us to run when we get a chance to use what we know ?
And he said, you see, you're running away FOR THEM, not FROM THEM.
I thought that made sense.

So, when somebody suggested that Israel blanket bomb Palestinians to get back at Hamas regardless of 'collateral damage' I disagreed.
I think that instead of getting into that kind of violence Israel should use its capabilities sparingly, or selectively, for the sake of what was termed 'collateral damage'.

 

[RLBosley]

You might think of this as a crude analogy, and as all analogies, there are holes. But I love my children. I also believe in corporal punishment (meted out in a Godly fashion, not out of anger). I do not cease to love my kids when I deal with their actions through physical discipline. I did not hate that man that night he attempted to mug me. And, being a soldier, I did not hate those Afghans (Afghanies? I can't remember right now which is the respectful term. Don can help me out here). In fact, I pitied them. I was sad it came to that.

OK. I understand where you're going with the discipline analogy but can you really say you are loving your enemy by killing him? I do not believe there is any logical or exegetical evidence to say that you can love someone by killing them. Particularly when the likelihood (at least possibility) is that in killing him you will be sending them into an eternal hell. Perhaps a mercy kill is arguable, but again I know of nothing in scripture that supports that. We are forbidden to return evil for evil. Using lethal force, even in self-defense, is returning evil for evil.

The grey area I admit is in the use of less than lethal violence (e.g, taser, pepper spray...). I'm still not 100% sure on that.

This is going to sound harsh. Very harsh. But please believe me when I say that this is not a personal attack, but hopefully an eye opening question. Who do you love more, your enemy or your wife? If you love your enemy to the point of allowing your wife to be raped or killed because you got killed taking a bullet for her but refused to neutralize him, then I'll let you fill in the rest. I am honestly not trying to attack, offend, or upset you. Just trying to get you to think this through to its conclusion.

Not upset or offended. No worries there. I have thought this through extensively, and have considered this very thing. Of course I love my wife more, more than any other person on the planet. But my responsibility to love my enemies is not negated by my love for her. Like I said, there are no exceptions to Jesus' teaching. This may sound heartless, I hope it doesn't come across like that though. But the Bible never tells me that loving my neighbor or even my wife is superior to loving my enemy. In fact, Jesus redefined our enemy as our neighbor, as illustrated in the parable of the good Samaritan.

Loving someone does not mean that you allow them to do evil unopposed. It is forgiving, it is charitable, but it is not a license to do as you will. If someone shot me and made me a paraplegic, I'd like to think that I'm big enough to forgive him. That's love. Letting him shoot me without a struggle is not love. Letting him harm my family because I will not kill him is not love. Forgiving him for trying is love. Calling the doctor and possibly even paying for his medical expenses afterwards; this is love. Putting some quikclot in a bullet wound so he doesn't die; this is love.

As with disciplining a child, love is not inherently nonviolent. As spanking my child, then hugging them to let them know our relationship is restored is love, so is becoming violent with an attacker, and then treating them with kindness.

I never said that we should allow them to do evil unopposed. As I have said, restrain the attacker, take the attack instead, try to get away, all those are options. But I believe we are absolutely forbidden from killing our enemy, no matter the circumstance. I see no way that you can say killing your enemy is loving, that's just not true or possible. Also, Jesus never affirmed the use of violence at all, even in the defense of the innocent or loved one. We are also told to go above just not killing our enemy:

Luk 6:27 NASB - "But I say to you who hear, love your enemies, do good to those who hate you,​

We love our enemies and we are to do good to them. I can't, in good conscience, say that I should love my enemy and do good to them, then shoot them, even without killing them. It just doesn't work.

Love your enemies. Pray for those that persecute you. But Christ never told us to go to death willingly. If this is what you believe, then by all means, live it. I wish no ill on you or your house. But that type of decision should not be made lightly, or on your own. Get input from those who would suffer from your inaction, namely your wife.

I agree that Jesus never said we are to go to death willingly, and it is not what I believe. I think we are to preserve life if at all possible, including our own. I thank you for your concern. Trust me, I have not come to this decision secretly or without her input. She has been right here with me in this struggle, and has come to agree with me. I do however take some offense at your insinuation that I would do nothing when you say "inaction." I've consistently said that pacifism does not equal passiveness.

 

[asterisktom]

Lately there have been a couple threads that I have participated in that have brought up the issues of violence in general and self-defense in particular. I have responded with my conviction that scripture teaches that Christians are to be non-violent.

By non-violence I mean this:

The Bible does not support the idea that the church in general or Christians as individuals can use violence, particularly lethal force. Violence, like fornication, intoxication or lying, is forbidden as the way a Christians should live, even when facing death themselves.

Also when I refer to violence I mean not only self-defense, but also participation in warfare, the Christian should not be involved. The issue of whether or not God permits the nations to war is really another matter.

So below I will list some of the clear passages from the New Testament that support the doctrine of non-violence.

Mat 5:9 NASB - "Blessed are the peacemakers, for they shall be called sons of God.

Mat 5:38-45 NASB - "You have heard that it was said, 'AN EYE FOR AN EYE, AND A TOOTH FOR A TOOTH.' "But I say to you, do not resist an evil person; but whoever slaps you on your right cheek, turn the other to him also. "If anyone wants to sue you and take your shirt, let him have your coat also. "Whoever forces you to go one mile, go with him two. "Give to him who asks of you, and do not turn away from him who wants to borrow from you. "You have heard that it was said, 'YOU SHALL LOVE YOUR NEIGHBOR and hate your enemy.' "But I say to you, love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, so that you may be sons of your Father who is in heaven; for He causes His sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous.

Mat 26:52 NASB - Then Jesus said to him, "Put your sword back into its place; for all those who take up the sword shall perish by the sword.

Jhn 18:36 NASB - Jesus answered, "My kingdom is not of this world. If My kingdom were of this world, then My servants would be fighting so that I would not be handed over to the Jews; but as it is, My kingdom is not of this realm."

Rom 12:14, 17-21 NASB - Bless those who persecute you; bless and do not curse. ... Never pay back evil for evil to anyone. Respect what is right in the sight of all men. If possible, so far as it depends on you, be at peace with all men. Never take your own revenge, beloved, but leave room for the wrath of God, for it is written, "VENGEANCE IS MINE, I WILL REPAY," says the Lord. "BUT IF YOUR ENEMY IS HUNGRY, FEED HIM, AND IF HE IS THIRSTY, GIVE HIM A DRINK; FOR IN SO DOING YOU WILL HEAP BURNING COALS ON HIS HEAD." Do not be overcome by evil, but overcome evil with good.

1Th 5:14-15 NASB - We urge you, brethren, admonish the unruly, encourage the fainthearted, help the weak, be patient with everyone. See that no one repays another with evil for evil, but always seek after that which is good for one another and for all people.

1Pe 2:19-24 NASB - For this finds favor, if for the sake of conscience toward God a person bears up under sorrows when suffering unjustly. For what credit is there if, when you sin and are harshly treated, you endure it with patience? But if when you do what is right and suffer for it you patiently endure it, this finds favor with God. For you have been called for this purpose, since Christ also suffered for you, leaving you an example for you to follow in His steps, WHO COMMITTED NO SIN, NOR WAS ANY DECEIT FOUND IN HIS MOUTH; and while being reviled, He did not revile in return; while suffering, He uttered no threats, but kept entrusting Himself to Him who judges righteously; and He Himself bore our sins in His body on the cross, so that we might die to sin and live to righteousness; for by His wounds you were healed.

Rev 12:11 NASB - "And they overcame him because of the blood of the Lamb and because of the word of their testimony, and they did not love their life even when faced with death.​

The whole testimony of the New Testament is that Christians endure violence but never inflict it. When faced with violence they endure suffering and have their blood shed rather than shed the blood of others.

I also want to say that there is nothing emotional, cultural or political driving this belief. There is nothing in the way I was taught or raised or my politics that would encourage a belief like this, I believe it solely because I believe the Bible overwhelmingly teaches it. So I would appreciate it if those who disagree could avoid (wrongly) calling me liberal or any other such nonsense. Thanks! :wavey:

I have really appreciated reading this thread. A good topic. I think that the legitimate uses for "Christian violence" (surely an oxymoron!) is a lot less than modern - especially we American - Christians think. Our country is more prone to violence than many others, and I believe that we are more prone to justify violence.

We have to a large degree lost sight of the radicalness of Christ's teaching. A good part of tht radicalness is teaching like turning the oher cheek and "put away your sword".

I have been surprised, RLBosley, that you are standing alone on this topic. I kept waiting for some others to agree. To me, the points you raise (with a few minor quibbles) seem self-evident. Kudos for giving us a good topic, and for bringing up good passages to consider.

(I hope this post makes it through the Great Firewall. It has been very frustrating recently. Anything Google-related, even using Google applets, like BB does, stands a good chance of being blocked. Fingers crossed. One never realizes how much Google has permeated Netdom until everything that is Google-dependent gets blocked!)

 

[Aaron]

The whole testimony of the New Testament is that Christians endure violence but never inflict it. When faced with violence they endure suffering and have their blood shed rather than shed the blood of others.

The NT testifies that civil government bears the sword to execute God's judgment upon the evildoers. May Christian be a police officer? A judge? A prison warden? A governor? A soldier?

You're saying loving one's neighbor means to allow the victimization of his neighbor if he can't be protected through nonviolent means.

 

[John of Japan]

"Love your enemies."
"Live at peace with all men."
"Do not repay evil for evil."

None of those have anything to do with violence? Really?

You're not paying attention. I didn't say these verses had nothing to do with violence. I said in post #12, "there are no verses in the entire Bible, including those you listed, which forbid violence in general, especially for self defense. I stand by that statement, which remains unanswered.

Concerning these three passages, simply defending myself does not mean I do not love the attacker. Secondly, "Live at peace with all men" in Rom. 12:18 is prefaced with "As much as is in you," so it certainly is not a command against violence. Thirdly, how does subduing a person who is attacking me or my family count as evil? It only does if you have a presupposition that all violence is evil.

That is a way that can be interpreted but certainly not the only. This has been debated for centuries. Regardless, let's assume you are right. It's only talking about an insult, a real slap, but still only an insult. So it's commanded to endure only a slap, but anything more than that we are free to beat the attacker up or kill them? I'm sorry but that's absurd! If we are not to return a slap, a simple insult, how much more should we not return violent attack? Your interpretation is more of a problem for you than for me.

No, sorry, you are the one being absurd. No one is advocating "beating up" an attacker or killing them, least of all me. I've never beat up or killed anyone, nor have I ever taught it in any self defense class or seminar I've ever taught. Furthermore, not resisting an insult does not logically translate to not resisting violence. That is a non sequitor.

That is the most twisted way I could imagine anyone ever reading that verse. Really?? You have your own "kingdom"?

You've completely missed the point. Never mind if I have a kingdom or not. The passage clearly teaches that Christ was not against all violence, but there is a proper place for violence. Perhaps this is the best passage in the Bible to advocate a just war doctrine.

What do I say? I say yes he violently destroys his enemies. Your point? I never said otherwise.
The point is that we trust God to take vengeance, which Christ clearly will. Read through Revelation and see if the church ever inflicts violence - it doesn't happen.

You changed the subject. Neither I nor anyone else here is advocating the church inflicting violence. And my point was that violence is not ergo evil if God is doing it. Therefore if it is not evil to God, there are times when it is not evil to His people.

If you take offense to it that's on you, not me. I said nothing offense. Maybe that's your conscience?

I thought better of you. Let me put it this way. If a man comes in my house and tries to rape my wife but I subdue him violently, am I then as wicked as the pastor I know who slept with a 17 year old not his wife and is now in the pen?

And by the way, my conscience is 100% pure in this area. I haven't had a violent conflict with anyone in almost 50 years unless you count teaching self defense (which to me is an act of love). It's disappointing that you would make this accusation. I thought better of you, but now I know.

I didn't redefine anything. How do you define violence?

Violence is physical action taken against another person. You said violence causes harm, but it may or may not. I can put an armlock on you that will cause immense pain but not harm you at all. A policeman may have a violent shootout with a bad guy with both missing every shot, as has happened, and no one being harmed.

This brings up the point: is it right or wrong for a policeman to use violence against a criminal?

 

[thisnumbersdisconnected]

You're saying loving one's neighbor means to allow the victimization of his neighbor if he can't be protected through nonviolent means.

We have a winner! Spot on, Aaron.

 

[thisnumbersdisconnected]

Regarding Matthew 26:52 --

Perhaps Bos can tell us why Jesus said "Put your sword away" instead of "Throw your sword away."

One would think that, if the statement "live by the sword ... die by the sword" were to be taken at face value for all eventualities, Jesus would not want one of His inner circle to own such a vile instrument. If one were to never use a sword, wouldn't Jesus counsel not to even possess one? Yet it was He who had told Peter just hours before to have the sword in the first place!

Luke 22, NASB
35 And He said to them, "When I sent you out without money belt and bag and sandals, you did not lack anything, did you?" They said, "No, nothing."
36 And He said to them, "But now, whoever has a money belt is to take it along, likewise also a bag, and whoever has no sword is to sell his coat and buy one.
37 "For I tell you that this which is written must be fulfilled in Me, 'AND HE WAS NUMBERED WITH TRANSGRESSORS'; for that which refers to Me has its fulfillment." ​

One can't read these two passages and come to the conclusion that Jesus was totally against violence at any time. If it became necessary, He advised His disciples to use it.

Pacifists read civil non-violence into every mention of “peace” in the New Testament. But that is hardly ever what the original human authors or the Holy Spirit were addressing. In the one place Jesus did clearly address “peace” in the civil non-violence sense—the sort of “peace” Pacifists have in mind—he firmly and absolutely denied he was teaching an ethic of Pacifism. In that passage Jesus very clearly explains to His disciples:

Matthew 10
34 "Do not think that I came to bring peace on the earth; I did not come to bring peace, but a sword.
35 "For I came to SET A MAN AGAINST HIS FATHER, AND A DAUGHTER AGAINST HER MOTHER, AND A DAUGHTER-IN-LAW AGAINST HER MOTHER-IN-LAW;
36 and A MAN'S ENEMIES WILL BE THE MEMBERS OF HIS HOUSEHOLD. ​

We must not forget that Jesus of the New Testament is also God of the Old Testament. Because the character of God never changes.

Malachi 3
6 "For I, the LORD, do not change; therefore you, O sons of Jacob, are not consumed."

James 1
17 Every good thing given and every perfect gift is from above, coming down from the Father of lights, with whom there is no variation or shifting shadow.​

This means the moral character of Jesus cannot be different than it always had been and always will be -- without variation. So, if God in the Old Testament approved of righteously executed violence in the name of self-defense or defense of the helpless then so did Jesus in the New Testament. This is an important part of the essential doctrine affirmed about Jesus by the writer of Hebrews, who said “Jesus Christ is the same yesterday and today and forever.”

 

[John of Japan]

Being a martyr and getting killed by a ravening lunatic for no reason other than he's blood thirsty are two different things entirely. If I have a choice to die or denounce God, I'd like to think I'd choose death. But if I have a choice between dying and living at the whim of a psycho, I will definitely choose life.

Especially if my family are in danger. If it's his life or my family's, I am going to protect what God has entrusted to me with my life.

Well said. How to handle persecution and how to defend one's self against wicked people (with no religious animus) are two different matters.

 

[Yeshua1]

Jesus himself commanded his Apostles to get swords to defend themselves with though...

And when a person does crime, or behaves by rape/murder others, they will fall under the judgement of God for their crimes in the sense of penaly assessed, and one of those just might be having the one getting wronged have the to defend themselves against the attacker!
i see nothing in the NT that prohibits a christian carrying a gun, having martial arts traiining, boxing skills etc, and not being able to use appropiate force to defend themselves with!
I know some would see it as not having faith in God to protect us if we are threatened by rape/murder/robbery, but I see it more as using what the Lord
provided to us for protection!

John the baptist did not tell the soldiers to lay down their weapons did he?

 

[kyredneck]

I have really appreciated reading this thread. A good topic. I think that the legitimate uses for "Christian violence" (surely an oxymoron!) is a lot less than modern - especially we American - Christians think. Our country is more prone to violence than many others, and I believe that we are more prone to justify violence.

Agree! Totally.

We have to a large degree lost sight of the radicalness of Christ's teaching. A good part of tht radicalness is teaching like turning the oher cheek and "put away your sword".

Agree with some 'minor quibbles'.

I have been surprised, RLBosley, that you are standing alone on this topic. I kept waiting for some others to agree. To me, the points you raise (with a few minor quibbles) seem self-evident. Kudos for giving us a good topic, and for bringing up good passages to consider.

RLB and Tom:

I'm surprised that no one has brought up the example of Sergeant York, you must admit, it certainly seems that the Lord strengthened his hand in combat.

Yes, it is an excellent topic, the points he raises should be self-evident, and the desire to 'do no ill' to one's neighbor should be the NATURAL INCLINATION of the regenerate heart, but, do you really think that Christ was changing the law in the SOM? Or was He, as author of the law, giving an exposition of the law showing the spirituality of the law? I personally don’t believe that He changed anything, He expounded upon it. For instance, I believe Ecc 3:1-8 is just as true today as it was then and He did not tell the soldiers seeking guidance (Lu 3:14) to change their occupations.

When He says to love your enemies, I can’t imagine that He meant God’s enemies (Ps 139:21-24). Remember that His immediate audience was Israel, which, considered typically (by type), indicates He is referring to your enemies ‘in the Lord’, and it’s the religious persecution that was soon to come upon them from their own fellow Jews (Heb 10:32-37) that is the immediate intent here. I believe that “love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you” is intended within the realm of religious persecution, i.e. Jews persecuting Jews, and later Christians persecuting Christians. Imagine the impact that the martyrdom of Stephen had upon Saul, or Servetus upon Calvin. But I can’t imagine that He intended for us to abandon our survival instincts to defend ourselves in the face of great danger from the criminal/sociopathic element.

On the other hand RLB, I greatly admire your nonviolent stance in the spirit of the religion of Jesus Christ, I’ve no doubt that you’re the kind of gentle people I always enjoy being in the company of.

 

[thisnumbersdisconnected]

There are no qualifications or exceptions to "love your enemies." When Jesus said that, He was referring to all people everywhere. Love God ... love others. That is the gist of the Law, and it carries no caveats.

And as I've said on another thread this morning, the two lines are parallel only within the limits of our own poor human vision. They are not contradictory or exclusive of one another. We love our enemies, but we are not to stand by passively while they rape, loot and pillage -- or while they denigrate our God and Lord. We love unconditionally, but we fight justly. Learn the requirement of doing both.

 

[kyredneck]

Do you love Satan?

 

[Yeshua1]

There are no qualifications or exceptions to "love your enemies." When Jesus said that, He was referring to all people everywhere. Love God ... love others. That is the gist of the Law, and it carries no caveats.

And as I've said on another thread this morning, the two lines are parallel only within the limits of our own poor human vision. They are not contradictory or exclusive of one another. We love our enemies, but we are not to stand by passively while they rape, loot and pillage -- or while they denigrate our God and Lord. We love unconditionally, but we fight justly. Learn the requirement of doing both.

God was the one thay had israel execute his judgement upon those pagan nations, so if God is always against use of force then?

And Jesus had His disciples take up swords for defense, so?

trust me, see no problem with a Christian using a gun or karate to defend his wife/kids if attacked!

 

[RLBosley]

I have really appreciated reading this thread. A good topic. I think that the legitimate uses for "Christian violence" (surely an oxymoron!) is a lot less than modern - especially we American - Christians think. Our country is more prone to violence than many others, and I believe that we are more prone to justify violence.

We have to a large degree lost sight of the radicalness of Christ's teaching. A good part of tht radicalness is teaching like turning the oher cheek and "put away your sword".

I have been surprised, RLBosley, that you are standing alone on this topic. I kept waiting for some others to agree. To me, the points you raise (with a few minor quibbles) seem self-evident. Kudos for giving us a good topic, and for bringing up good passages to consider.

(I hope this post makes it through the Great Firewall. It has been very frustrating recently. Anything Google-related, even using Google applets, like BB does, stands a good chance of being blocked. Fingers crossed. One never realizes how much Google has permeated Netdom until everything that is Google-dependent gets blocked!)

You are exactly right. Thanks to centuries of bad teaching and misrepresenting what Jesus actually taught, we've lost sight of what the Lord actually commanded.

Thanks for your support.

 

[thisnumbersdisconnected]

You are exactly right. Thanks to centuries of bad teaching and misrepresenting what Jesus actually taught, we've lost sight of what the Lord actually commanded.

Thanks for your support.

Would you respond to my post that begins with the question regarding Matthew 26:52?

Do you love Satan?

How does Satan qualify as an "other" in that context?

 

[RLBosley]

The NT testifies that civil government bears the sword to execute God's judgment upon the evildoers. May Christian be a police officer? A judge? A prison warden? A governor? A soldier?

Yes it does, as I've consistently affirmed in this thread and others. When it comes to specific occupations I believe that we can serve in capacities that do not involve violence, particularly lethal force. So for me, being a LEO or soldier is out.

When it comes to political office I just don't know. I'm still working through that myself.

You're saying loving one's neighbor means to allow the victimization of his neighbor if he can't be protected through nonviolent means.

Not even close to what I'm saying. It's unfortunate that you resort to misrepresenting my position in such a way to try and make a point.

Regarding Matthew 26:52 --

Perhaps Bos can tell us why Jesus said "Put your sword away" instead of "Throw your sword away."

One would think that, if the statement "live by the sword ... die by the sword" were to be taken at face value for all eventualities, Jesus would not want one of His inner circle to own such a vile instrument. If one were to never use a sword, wouldn't Jesus counsel not to even possess one? Yet it was He who had told Peter just hours before to have the sword in the first place!

Luke 22, NASB
35 And He said to them, "When I sent you out without money belt and bag and sandals, you did not lack anything, did you?" They said, "No, nothing."
36 And He said to them, "But now, whoever has a money belt is to take it along, likewise also a bag, and whoever has no sword is to sell his coat and buy one.
37 "For I tell you that this which is written must be fulfilled in Me, 'AND HE WAS NUMBERED WITH TRANSGRESSORS'; for that which refers to Me has its fulfillment." ​

One can't read these two passages and come to the conclusion that Jesus was totally against violence at any time. If it became necessary, He advised His disciples to use it.

I've dealt with all of that passage entirely. You can't read the full context and really believe that Jesus intended for the disciples to use the swords for self defense. It just isn't possible. The Lord NEVER "advised His disciples to use it," that is not in scripture AT ALL.

Pacifists read civil non-violence into every mention of “peace” in the New Testament. But that is hardly ever what the original human authors or the Holy Spirit were addressing. In the one place Jesus did clearly address “peace” in the civil non-violence sense—the sort of “peace” Pacifists have in mind—he firmly and absolutely denied he was teaching an ethic of Pacifism. In that passage Jesus very clearly explains to His disciples:

Matthew 10
34 "Do not think that I came to bring peace on the earth; I did not come to bring peace, but a sword.
35 "For I came to SET A MAN AGAINST HIS FATHER, AND A DAUGHTER AGAINST HER MOTHER, AND A DAUGHTER-IN-LAW AGAINST HER MOTHER-IN-LAW;
36 and A MAN'S ENEMIES WILL BE THE MEMBERS OF HIS HOUSEHOLD. ​

Jesus is speaking about division due to his teaching, particularly among families! You cannot honestly say that he is teaching here that he wants his followers to use violence. That's pure fantasy!

We must not forget that Jesus of the New Testament is also God of the Old Testament. Because the character of God never changes.

Malachi 3
6 "For I, the LORD, do not change; therefore you, O sons of Jacob, are not consumed."

James 1
17 Every good thing given and every perfect gift is from above, coming down from the Father of lights, with whom there is no variation or shifting shadow.​

This means the moral character of Jesus cannot be different than it always had been and always will be -- without variation. So, if God in the Old Testament approved of righteously executed violence in the name of self-defense or defense of the helpless then so did Jesus in the New Testament. This is an important part of the essential doctrine affirmed about Jesus by the writer of Hebrews, who said “Jesus Christ is the same yesterday and today and forever.”

I absolutely believe in the immutability of God. However that has nothing to do with this. If giving a new command of non-violence was contrary to God's immutability then you would have to also affirm that Jesus making all foods clean is contrary to God's immutability. Or that no longer requiring ritual washing was contrary to immutability. In short, if you want to take immutability to that level then you have to affirm that we are still under the entirety of the Old Testament Law. I know that you don't do this. The fundamental distinction is that we are under a different covenant entirely than the OT Israelites were.

Below are just a handful of examples off the top of my head that show the radical change between covenants.


Old Covenant:------------New Covenant:
Forbidden foods-------------All foods clean
Ritual washing---------------No ritual washing
Sacrificial system------------Fulfilled in Christ, no more sacrifices
Polygamy permitted----------Polygamy forbidden
Required tithe---------------Voluntary giving
Eye for an eye--------------Eye for an eye abolished

For an OT Israelite to do (or not do) the things on the list under the New Covenant would have been sin. Yet today that is the law and ethic we obey. This is not a problem for immutability - neither is the OT permission and NT prohibition of violence. Just because God's covenant has changed and the requirements he places on his people has changed, doesn't mean that he has changed. Surely you recognize this.

There are no qualifications or exceptions to "love your enemies." When Jesus said that, He was referring to all people everywhere. Love God ... love others. That is the gist of the Law, and it carries no caveats.

And as I've said on another thread this morning, the two lines are parallel only within the limits of our own poor human vision. They are not contradictory or exclusive of one another. We love our enemies, but we are not to stand by passively while they rape, loot and pillage -- or while they denigrate our God and Lord. We love unconditionally, but we fight justly. Learn the requirement of doing both.

Again... for the umpteenth time... I have NEVER said that we "stand by passively while they rape, loot and pillage."

And yes we fight justly, I agree. How do we do this?

2Co 10:3-5 NASB - For though we walk in the flesh, we do not war according to the flesh, for the weapons of our warfare are not of the flesh, but divinely powerful for the destruction of fortresses. We are destroying speculations and every lofty thing raised up against the knowledge of God, and we are taking every thought captive to the obedience of Christ,​

 

[RLBosley]

Would you respond to my post that begins with the question regarding Matthew 26:52?

Man, give me time to breath! It takes time to respond ya know. :laugh: