For Pacifists: If Jesus was a pacifist, why didn't he tell all Roman soldiers....

Surely you jest.

Yes, robbing Christian holy men who are completely pacifistic and won't resist you in any way and will even take the opportunity to further divest themselves of worldly goods would probably be somewhat embarrassing for any thief with even the most vestigial sense of decency.

As you can see, however, humiliating the thieves was not the holy fathers' motive.

Jest? No. The accounts given do not mention a weapon or threat of violence, they merely talk about demands. In the second case, no demand was even made - the thief was merely caught in the act and the victim went along with it in essense to shame the perpretrator and/or respond in kindness.



I think it is partly a motive. Nothing better than turning expectations upside down. Shame is usually a natural response when you are treated with grace after showing contempt. Jesus on the cross taught us that. Without the sense of shame for what humanity has done, we wouldn't be able to understand our guilt and need for forgiveness.

Pastors make this very point constantly without the required props. These are individuals that would see Roman soldiers on a daily basis. You don't need the sword in hand to make a point about swords anymore than you need any other prop to make a point. It may be useful, but not altogether necessary.

__________________
In nomine Patris, et Filii, et Spiritus Sancti. Amen.
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.


"I do not preach universal salvation, what I say is that I cannot exclude the possibility that God would save all men at the Judgment." ~Karl Barth

"It is the job of prophets and scientists alike to proclaim the glories of God" ~ Louis Agassiz



To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

We have had a number of robberies and home invasions occur here in the past few years. In some of those instances the clerk of the store or the home owners were murdered following their having complied with the criminal's demands. The purpose for this was simple: A dead witness is no witness.

There are those who steal out of desperation. They or their familes are in need, and they can't see any other way of satisfying those needs. So they turn to theft as the avenue. Personally, I consider their desperation as a call to Christians to do what Jesus has told us that he expects us to do, namely, see to the needs of those around us.

But there are others who see theft, and even theft combined with murder, as a legitimate means of obtaining what they want. It is those people whom the news reports as having killed their victims in order to prevent those victims from interfering with a lifestyle which the criminal has deliberately chosen.

As an example, a store was robbed here only a few years ago, and the clerk handed the robber all the money in the register without fighting. After getting the money, the robber promptly shot and killed the clerk, and then went to the room where the security footage was being taped. He then removed the tape and took it with him, thus preventing anyone from identifying him as the robber/murderer.

Sociopathy has become almost an epidemic. There are numerous people who consider it to be their divine right to take whatever they desire, and then kill anyone who might interfere with their continuing to take whatever they desire. They believe in no God except their own cravings, and consider others only as prey animals to be culled in order to obtain what they want. Before they have even chosen a victim to rob, they have already decided that the victim must die so that they can continue robbing others.

As for Jesus being a pacifist, I doubt that very much. In the story of Jesus' being found in the temple when he was twelve years old, the reason for Joseph and Mary's not realizing that he was with them when they initially left Jerusalem is due to safety. They had probably made that trip numerous times while Jesus was growing up. But this year Jesus turned 12, and that meant that he would now take his place among the men of Israel.

It also meant that for the first and only time Jesus would have a choice as to which group he would be with on their way home. He could either travel with the men, or he could travel for the last time with the women and children. And they were seperate groups, with the men going ahead of the women. So Mary thought that he was in Joseph's group, and Joseph thought that he was in Mary's group. But he was in neither group.

The reason for this was due to bandits lying in wait along the roads. If they attacked, they would attack the men, because it was the men who carried the money and valuables. This would enable the women and children to take cover while the men fought off the bandits, who, like the sociopaths of today, had no intention of leaving them alive to identify them (remember what happened to the two thieves). The responsibility of the men would be to resist the desires of the bandits, because not only did their lives depend on their stopping them, but the lives of their women and children also depended on their stopping them.

Starting with Jesus' 13th birthday, he would himself have journeyed with the other men; his days of traveling with the women and children were over. And as a man in Judea, he would have been equally responsible for fighting off the bandits intending to do them and their families harm. Jesus would not have shirked these responsibilities.

Nice post.

Originally Posted by progmonk

Well you miss the end of that conversation:
They said, “Lord, behold, here are two swords.”
He said to them, “That is enough.”

So I'm not sure that you can make the assertion that we should be armed, because apparently one sword for every 6 men is adequately armed.

And you're sure He wasn't saying that that was enough discussion, as opposed to the face that two swords were enough for a dozen men? The latter is extremely unlikely. Also, even if two swords for a dozen men was enough, that still shoots down the argument that Jesus didn't advocate aggressive defense of one's self.

A Glass #1 - Concerning original question “If Jesus was a pacifist...”

Jesus’ earthly ministry was unmistakably directed exclusively to the Jews. Not until Cornelius’ conversion with Peter do you really see any sort of fueled ministry toward the gentiles.

What we see is Jesus giving his commands to his disciples (Jews) and the crowds of listeners (also Jews).

Just because Jesus didn’t tell the Gentiles to abandon their soldiering in these early interactions, does not mean that the Apostles would have have been derelict in delivering the commands of Christ to later converts.

The silence in these few narratives when Jesus’ interacts with soldiers does not equate to some universal allowance, especially in the face of other passages which clearly express Christ’s rules for his followers. Surely silence on a topic in one place does not overturn plain, emphatic teaching on the same topic elsewhere.

Matthew 5:38 Ye have heard that it hath been said, An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth: 39 But I say unto you, That ye resist not evil: but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also.

Matthew 5:43 Ye have heard that it hath been said, Thou shalt love thy neighbor, and hate thine enemy. 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; 45 That ye may be the children of your Father which is in heaven: for he maketh the sun to rise on the evil and on the good, and sendeth rain on the just and on the unjust. 46 For if ye love them which love you, what reward have ye? do not even the publicans the same?

Matthew 10:28 And fear not them which kill the body, but are not able to kill the soul: but rather fear him which is able to destroy both soul and body in hell. 39 He that findeth his life shall lose it: and he that loseth his life for my sake shall find it.

Luke 6:27 But I say unto you which hear, Love your enemies, do good to them which hate you, 28 Bless them that curse you, and pray for them which despitefully use you. 29 And unto him that smiteth thee on the one cheek offer also the other, and him that taketh away thy cloak forbid not to take thy coat also. 35 But love ye your enemies, and do good, and lend, hoping for nothing again, and your reward shall be great, and ye shall be the children of the Highest: for he is kind unto the unthankful and to the evil.

Matthew 26:52 Then said Jesus unto him, Put up again thy sword into his place: for all they that take the sword shall perish with the sword.

Matthew 10:16 Behold, I send you forth as sheep in the midst of wolves: be ye therefore wise as serpents, and harmless as doves.

And were the apostles faithful in their distribution of these commands and teachings?

1 Peter 3:8 Finally be ye all of one mind, having compassion one of another, love as brethren, be pitiful, be courteous: 9 Not rendering evil for evil, or railing for railing: but contrariwise blessing; knowing that ye are thereunto called, that ye should inherit a blessing.

Romans 12:17 Recompense to no man evil for evil. Provide all things honest in the sight of all men. 18 If it be possible as much as lieth with you, live peaceably with all men. 19 Dearly beloved, avenge not yourselves, but rather give place unto wrath: for it is written, Vengeance is mine; I will repay, saith the Lord. 20 Therefore if thine enemy hunger, feed him; if he thirst, give him drink: for in so doing thou shalt heap coals of fire on his head. 21 Be not overcome of evil, but overcome evil with good.

1 Thessalonians 5:15 See that none render evil for evil unto any man; but ever follow that which is good, both among yourselves, and to all men.

Ephesians 6:12 For we wrestle not against flesh and blood...

2 Corinthians 10:3 For though we walk in the flesh, we do not war after the flesh: 4 For the weapons of our warfare are not carnal, but mighty through God to the pulling down of strong holds.

James 3:18 And the fruit of righteousness is sown in peace of them that make peace.

Hebrews 12:14 Follow peace with all men, and holiness, without which no man shall see the Lord.

1 Corinthians 4:11 Even unto this present hour we both hunger, and thirst, and are naked, and are buffeted, and have no certain dwelling place; 12 And labour, working with our own hands: being reviled, we bless; being persecuted, we suffer it.

A Glass #7 Concerning a) turning of the tables b) OT wars, and c) contradictions...

a) The cleansing of the temple was a very distinct moment in Jesus' life pertaining to his zeal for the Father’s house. This passage does not come close to the topic of self-defense, soldiering, etc. even if it could be establish that Jesus used violence (the scourge) against the men and money changers.

This example of Jesus was never used by the apostles or earliest christians to justify violent actions. However, the example that was considered binding on christians is Jesus pacifism before the Sanhedrin and at Calvary.

Isaiah 53:9 And he made his grave with the wicked, and with the rich in his death; because he had done no violence, neither was any deceit in his mouth.

Luke 9:23 And he said to them all, If any man will come after me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross daily, and follow me.

1 Peter 2:21 For even hereunto were ye called: because Christ also suffered for us, leaving us an example, that ye should follow his steps: 22 Who did no sin, neither was guile found in his mouth: 23 Who, when he was reviled, reviled not again; when he suffered, he threatened not; but committed himself to him that judgeth righteously.

To offer my own conjecture which I believe to be more than plausible, Jesus took the scourge and used it to move the largest animals out of the temple, causing the merchants to chase after them. At that point, the sheer presence of Jesus’ authority and vigor would have been enough to cause the rest to quickly pick up their coins and creep out in the shame of their moral carelessness.

b) This occurred in the Old Testament when God was in strict covenant with the nation of Israel and they were righteously executing the just commands and judgments of God against other nations. These events cannot support a position of war or violent self-defense under the New Covenant.

At this point it might be good to point out that the New Testament teaching on pacifism has nothing to do with “passivism” or apathy towards evildoers and violence done against innocent people. Until Christ’s second coming he has established rules for his followers concerning how to conduct themselves as subjects of earthly nations while they wait for the full manifestation of their heavenly political body (the Kingdom of God). In the meantime God has granted authority to heathen governments and authorities to deal with evildoers of which Christians have no part (see Romans 12-13). Christians are not against justice, they just realize that full justice will be met out in the Kingdom and by God. Until then, they suffer wrong and shame and slander and even bodily death in the face of unjust persecution in any form.

c) A Glass, are you just assuming there are contradictions up front, or have you genuinely sought to rightly divide these parts of the Bible and concluded they are contradictory? Also, why exactly do you “want pacifism to be the Way?” What makes you say that?

IisJustMe #10 - Concerning Luke 22:35-38 and the swords.

The answer is found in the context.

Luke 22:37 For I say unto you, that this that is written must yet be accomplished in me, And he was reckoned among the transgressors: for the things concerning me have an end.

His band of merry men carrying a mere two swords was enough for the captains of the temple to count them as “transgressors.” Especially considering Peter’s hacking off the ear of the servant (despite Jesus’ Mr. Potato Head miracle).

Their having two swords was just one more element in the plot to guarantee the verdict at the councils leading the religious elite (out of their own free-will) to turn Jesus over to the gentiles to be put to death.

Remember...

Matthew 26:59 Now the chief priests, and elders, and all the council, sought false witness against Jesus, to put him to death; 60 But found none: yea, though many false witnesses came, yet found they none.

Eventually they felt satisfied with the charge of blasphemy (self-identifying as the Son of God) but what’s important to note is that the Jewish religious leaders retained the authority to put such lawbreakers to death (as was evidenced by the stoning of Stephen).

My hunch is that they knew they could stone him to death but (but similarly to Matthew 21:25) they feared the masses of people who genuinely liked Jesus. Instead, the convenient solution was to raise false sedition charges against Jesus - that he was an insurrectionist bent on revolution against Rome - hence the only ‘charge’ that was really leveled against Jesus at the hearing with Pilate: “Art thou the King of the Jews”? Under the arm of Rome, the nation of Israel would not have been allowed to enthrone a messianic king. This was the perfect solution for the religious leaders, thanks to the political tension of their time.

Jesus’ followers being found with swords (along with the testimony that one of them actually used a sword to attack the High Priest’s servant) definitely would have aided the chief priests and the temple captains in bringing him to the gentiles as a “transgressor.”

Furthermore, it's just ludicrous to suggest that the apostles went out (as described by Paul in 1 Corinthians 4:11) and used swords to hack away at bandits and other evildoers, but otherwise always ready to lay down their lives as martyrs any day of the week. There is no evidence whatsoever that any apostle or disciple carried a sword with them for the purposes of self-defense and/or vindicating their rights as I think you are implying with your post. The only one who did so in the New Testament got a swift rebuke for it.

Audacious #13 - Concerning violent self-defense.

If everyone were to analyze these threatening situations from a very rationale, unemotional standpoint, I believe most would agree that introducing violent retaliation to such scenarios has the same effect as pouring more gas on the fire.

Also, here are some interesting questions for anyone to ponder...

Is it lawful for a Christian to kill a person who’s attempting to use violence to simply steal money or other material goods?

Are you good enough with a handgun or a knife under that much stress to just immobilize an attacker and not kill them, so you can get away?

Do you always carry a weapon to deal with the random potential for senseless crimes?

What is your plan when you don’t have the violent means to resist an evil person?

How would you respond if the person committing the violent sociopathic crime against you turned out to be a loved one like your brother, your son, or your father?