That could be a great source of conflict for him. I work alone with access to large amounts of cash near a bad part of town. I carry a gun (legally) for protection and won't hesitate to use it if it becomes necessary. I'm not trigger happy and pray it never becomes necessary but if it did, I would be shooting to kill.
But then I'm a very poor example of an Orthodox Christian. Then again there is the story if St. Mercurius taking care of the emperor so it's possible. There are also devoutly Orthodox soldiers and cops so that would be something to think about.
I think having someone from a soldier background where death was a reality--and they were conflicted about it (be it as a body guard, an assassian/enforcer, a member of a Special Operations groups or simply as a cop) is perhaps the greatest way to bring out conflict in a character that's worth following. For in many cases, having the options NOT to take life is not an option.
To have a comic book hero based on the story of St.Mercurius working for the emperor--and showing all of the things not "recorded" in history that the man did which may be questionable when it comes to violence....how wild would that be. To have a monk who is seeking to be peaceful and yet being forced to take life/ask forgiveness....never certain of where he stands as he goes on his own journey, would be a great way of conveying the struggle others have when it comes to learning how to follow the Lord.
In addition to someone such as St.Mercurius being an example to base a comic book story on, I'm reminded of
Alexander Peresvet, also spelled
Peresviet (Russian: Александр Пересвет
, who was a Russian Orthodox Christian monk who fought in a single combat with the Tatar champion Temir-murza (known in most Russian sources as Chelubey or Cheli-bey) at the opening of the Battle of Kulikovo (8 September 1380), where they killed each other. He is believed to have hailed from the Bryansk area and took the monastic habit at the Rostov Monastery of Saints Boris and Gleb. Later he moved to the Monastery of Pereslavl-Zalessky under the service of Dmitri Donskoi. He later moved to the Trinity Abbey where he became a follower of Sergius of Radonezh...and at some point, Alexander and his friend Rodion Oslyabya joined Russian troops approaching to fight against Mamai invasion. As the battle of Kulikovo was opened by single combat between the two champions, the Russian champion was Alexander Peresvet and the Horde champion was Temir-murza. More can
be found here on the matter.. and here at
Icon of Saint Alexander Peresvet (Radonezhsky)
Some of it seems similar to one story that was found within the scriptures:
Numbers 25:7-9/
Numbers 25
6 Then an Israelite man brought into the camp a Midianite woman right before the eyes of Moses and the whole assembly of Israel while they were weeping at the entrance to the tent of meeting. 7 When Phinehas son of Eleazar, the son of Aaron, the priest, saw this, he left the assembly, took a spear in his hand 8 and followed the Israelite into the tent.
He drove the spear into both of them, right through the Israelite man and into the woman’s stomach. Then the plague against the Israelites was stopped; 9 but those who died in the plague numbered 24,000.
10 The LORD said to Moses, 11
“Phinehas son of Eleazar, the son of Aaron, the priest, has turned my anger away from the Israelites. Since he was as zealous for my honor among them as I am, I did not put an end to them in my zeal. .
Phinehas was willing to kill if he felt it would glorify the Lord in His Holiness and advancing what he knew to be true of the Kingdom...and some of this is similar to what happened in Biblical history when there were others that were fighters seeking to defend what they felt was the faith.
I'm reminded of the Zealots of scripture., as
the Zealots had a different view of serving God that their sister group the Pharisees.
For the Zealots take on a differing light when realizing how many of them were
devout priests who were willing to act on Violence whereas other priests/holy men avoided it...and the Zealots, although others may disagree with them,
were men seeking to do what they felt was honorable.
More on the Zealots can be discussed
here and here
As said best by
one organization I've followed over the years:
After Herod's death, many of the Galilean supporters of Hezekiah attempted to create resistance against Herod's sons. This too was brutally put down. In AD 6,Judea was officially incorporated into the Roman Empire. A census was ordered, and Quirinius, governor of Syria, carried out the order so that the new province could be appropriately taxed. The priests in Jerusalem urged restraint and cooperation with the Romans; but Hezekia's son Judah of Gamla (the isolated mountaintop city northeast of the Sea of Galilee) urged violent resistance. A popular Pharisee named Zadok, also from Galilee, supported Judah. The Zealot movement was founded. The well-known Pharisee Gamliel recorded the early history of Judah and his movement. Judas the Galilean appeared in the days of the census and led a band of people in revolt. He too was killed, and all his followers were scattered (see Acts 5:37). He was probably killed by Herod Antipas, who also murdered John the Baptist (Matt. 14:1-12).
Both Judas and Zadok were devoted to the Torah as the only guide for righteous living before God. They based their zeal for God on the action of Phinehas, Aaron's son, recorded in Numbers 25:7-13. Phinehas is praised for his zeal, which imitated the zeal of God (Num. 25:11,13). The fact that Phinehas, a priest of God, used a spear became the basis for what Zealots considered a divine command to use violent action to defend God's name and destroy unfaithfulness to Torah among the Jewish people. This interpretation would lead to a long history of violent acts against Rome and brutal conflict between the Zealots and the Jews they believed cooperated with the pagan empire.
The philosophy of the Zealot movement was that there was only one God, and Israel was to serve him alone; the Torah and other writings of the Bible were the only guide to righteous living; and serving the emperor in any way, whether in worship, slavery, or paying taxes, was apostasy against God. Josephus, who knew the Zealots, described their passion for freedom as unconquerable because they would serve no one but God. Violent resistance was considered a God-ordained responsibility since they believed God was on their side, they knew that they would triumph in the end. This led to their reputation for incredible bravery and tolerance for suffering.
The Zealots lived by the strictest conformity to the Torah. In addition, they refused to acknowledge anyone as king, since "you shall have no other gods" (Ex. 20:3).
Zealots are truly amazing...and in reading the
scriptures, I've found it interesting to see how not all things associated with them were counter to Christ. I'm reminded of others such as Simon the Zealot ( Luke 6:14-16 / Luke 6 / Matthew 10:3-5 / Matthew 10 /Mark 3:17-19 Mark 3 ), who was
the "terrorist" of
the apostolic group (and most likely a problem, especially when dealing with tax-collectors and understanding
the History between them and
the Zealots..already against government in a myriad of ways ).
He (Christ) had many diverse individuals apart of His inner circle---despite how BOTH sides had significant issue with
the other, with Zealots wishing to overthrow Rome and feeling as if Tax-Collectors had "Sold out".
Considering the fact that Jesus opposed violent rebellion against Rome, many probably wondered why Jesus would choose such a fellow.....and adding to that is the irony in how Matthew was a tax collector. Tax collectors were very much in league with Rome. There were probably no two groups of Jews in Palestine who hated each other more than the tax collectors and the zealots. Yet, Jesus chose one of each. Most people probably would have been afraid that these two fellows would kill each other...but the Lord wasn’t. For he understood that the kingdom of God was more powerful than the hatred of men. And the very fact Jesus chose two men so opposite in their worldviews was a demonstration of its power.
And perhaps Christ chose Simon due to family relation--making the issue more close to home. For in the Gospels, some feel Simon the Zealot is identified with Simon the "brother" of Jesus mentioned in
Gospel of Mark 6:3 :
Isn't this the carpenter? Isn't this Mary's son and the brother of James, Joseph, Judas and Simon? Aren't his sisters here with us? —
Some things to consider....
Simon was called a "
Zealot" in his lifestyle before ministry with Jesus, probably a member of
the Zealot party, which was a party determined to overthrow Roman Domination in Palestine. Interestingly enough,
the "
Zealot" term is still used for
the man AFTER Christ rose from
the Grave,
Acts 1:12-14 Acts 1 .IMHO, it gives room to indicate that even after being in
the midst of Jesus, that which he may have been known for was probably with him to one degree or another---such as still possibly wishing for Rome to be overthrown or having sympathies for those against Roman Oppression. When considering how
the man died, there are many traditions. One tradition states that he traveled in the Middle East and Africa. Christian Ethiopians claim that he was crucified in Samaria, while Justus Lipsius writes that he was sawn in half at Suanir, Persia. However, Moses of Chorene writes that he was martyred at Weriosphora in Caucasian Iberia. Tradition also claims he died peacefully at Edessa. Another tradition says he visited Britain -- possibly Glastonbury -- and was martyred in Caistor, modern-day Lincolnshire.
Another interesting tradition, doubtless inspired by his title "the Zealot", states that he was involved in a Jewish revolt against the Romans, which was brutally suppressed in A.D 70. If the last tradition is true, it'd make his character interesting.
If knowing of the work by Robert Eisenman (Eisenman 1997 pp 33-4), he pointed out the contemporary talmudic references to Zealots as kanna'im "but not really as a group — rather as avenging priests in the Temple." For more info, one can look up
the work entitled
James the Brother of Jesus : The Key to Unlocking the Secrets of Early Christianity and the Dead Sea Scrolls. (Viking Penguin). But on
Simon, when Jesus called him, nowhere is there sign that there was an immediate change over night..especially considering how often they argued amongst themselves...
If someone like Simon could still be considered as one with violent tendencies, why would it be impossible to have a superhero who is depicted the same----especially within Orthodoxy?
Going back to Orthodox members who were violent, IMHO, to see others within Orthodox history who were soldiers defending the faith is interesting to consider...
