I've been reading The Kingdom of God is Within You by Leo Tolstoy and I was wondering what everyone thought about non-resistance. Is it ever right for a Christian to use violence?
Is non-resistance biblical?
- Thread starter callmeMurph
- Start date
David Brider
Well-Known Member
- Aug 18, 2004
- 6,513
- 700
- Country
- United Kingdom
- Faith
- Methodist
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- UK-Greens
I don't think so. Other people would disagree with that.
Not using violence is not the same thing as non-resistance, though.
David.
Upvote
0
There is absolutely nothing in the bible that I am aware of that says to avoid violence in order to defend yourself or your family. So yes, there are instances where violence is permitted. In the old testament, death was an acceptable response to many things in Mosaic Law. There are tons of instances where Christians were commanded to commit violence.
Christ said to turn the other cheek when one is slapped. But the purpose of that is to display Christian strength and character in the face of disrespect. When someone slaps you they're not really trying to hurt you. Much less kill you. It's basically just a step up from getting spit on. I think people really take that passage out of context and consider it a shackle to prevent you from doing anything ever. Therefore a really twisted mindset comes from it in thinking the world is permitted to pillage, plunder, murder and rape anything you have and you're expected to do nothing.
Christ said to turn the other cheek when one is slapped. But the purpose of that is to display Christian strength and character in the face of disrespect. When someone slaps you they're not really trying to hurt you. Much less kill you. It's basically just a step up from getting spit on. I think people really take that passage out of context and consider it a shackle to prevent you from doing anything ever. Therefore a really twisted mindset comes from it in thinking the world is permitted to pillage, plunder, murder and rape anything you have and you're expected to do nothing.
Upvote
0
Walter Kovacs
Justice is coming, no matter what we do.
- Jan 22, 2011
- 1,922
- 91
- Faith
- Christian Seeker
- Marital Status
- In Relationship
This is an article a friend of mine wrote on this subject (this is not mine):
I. The Sixth Commandment - originally written by David Hemlock.
“The sixth commandment forbids murder. The ethical theology that lies behind this prohibition is the fact that all men and women have been created in the image of God (Gen 1:26-26; 9:6). While Hebrew possesses seven words for killing, the word used here, rasah, appears only forty-seven times in the OT. If any one of the seven words could signify “murder” where the factors of premeditation and intentionality are present, this is the verb… Without exception, however, in later periods (e.g. Ps 94:6; Prov 22:13; Isa 1:21; Hos 4:2; 6:9; Jer 7:9) it carries the idea of murder with intentional violence. Every one of these instances stresses the act or allegation of premeditation and deliberateness –and that is what is at the heart of this verb. Thus this prohibition does not apply to beasts (Gen 9:3), to defending one’s home from night-time burglars (Ex22:2), to accidental killings (Deut 19:5), to the execution of murderers by the state (Gen 9:6); or to involvement with one’s nation in certain types of war as illustrated by Israel’s history. It does apply, however, to self-murder (i.e. suicide), to all accessories to murder (2 Sam 12:9), and to those who have authority but fail to use it to punish known murderers (1 Kings 21:19)” Kaiser, Walter C., Exodus, in Gaebelein, Frank E., ed., EBC, vol. 1, pp. 424f.
“The sixth commandment in its original meaning indubitably referred to murder, not war.” –Donald Bloesch
II. Christian Ethics and Life Taking: General Considerations
“Life-taking is hateful, but life-saving is loving. Hence, it is an axiom of the Christian love-ethic that life-sacrificing is justifiable only if life-saving is thereby accomplishable. Life-taking as such is never the obligation of love, but sacrificing a life to save lives can be demanded by love… (Geisler, Norman, The Christian Ethic of Love, p. 118).
“To kill in the name of Christ and in order to advance the kingdom of Christ is expressly forbidden by Jesus (Mt 26:52, 53). Yet sometimes we have to take up the sword in order to preserve life, and this is permitted in the Bible but as something that pertains to the passing aeon, the world of sin and darkness, not to the new age of the kingdom of God. Since we belong to the old age as well as to the new, we act in two roles: as responsible citizens of the state, which can only maintain itself by force, and as ambassadors of the kingdom of Christ, which maintains itself solely by works of faith and love. The ethic of Jesus expressed in the so-called Sermon on the Mount was given to disciples, not to nations. If the radical ethic of nonresistance were applied directly to nations, it would mean the end of all civil government. Yet the church, which is under this higher command, can be a guide to the nations. It is the moral monitor or the conscience of the state. In Romans 13 the power of the state to wield the sword is expressly acknowledged by Paul; at the same time, the sixth commandment is vigorously reaffirmed. The principle of nonresistance or no retaliation can be a goal or ideal in the social arena, but never a political strategy.” (Bloesch, Donald, Freedom for Obedience (NY: Harper and Row, 1987), 292-293
Even Wolfhardt Pannenberg, who maintains no war is ‘just,’ agrees a nation may have sufficient grounds to engage in war, e.g. in the instance of unprovoked attack, or even pre-emptively to “anticipate an attack that is certain to come.” (Wolfhardt Pannenberg, Ethics, p. 179).
Augustine argued that although Christians should not defend themselves individually, they were required to act in defense of a defenseless neighbor. As Norman Geisler observes, “Vengeance does belong to the Lord and engaging in wars out of vindictive motives is wrong. But justice is, in part, man’s cause and the defense of the innocent is not wrong” (Geisler, Norman, The Christian Ethic of Love, p. 121).
We cannot fully enter into the complex maze of Just War Theory in philosophy and theology which has remained a major field of inquiry from Augustine to the present. But some widely discussed principles can be mentioned in passing:
War must be declared and engaged in by proper authority (Rom 13:4).
All attempts at peaceful negotiations have first failed (Rom 12:18; Heb 12:14; Deut 20:10; i.e. war must be undertaken only as a last resort).
Justly waged (Deut 20:19, 20 contra “scorched earth”; avoid unnecessary destruction, especially of that essential to continuation of life after war; avoidance of indiscriminate killing of non-combatants, etc.).
Protection of the innocent is a demand of love (Gen 14:14f).
Persons are more valuable than things (the OT represents the first time in human history this principle was affirmed).
Persons who respect personhood are to be preferred over those who do not.
Many lives are of more value than few lives.
Realistic expectation of success.
These principles notwithstanding, I cannot help but agree with the reservations expressed by Pannenberg and Bloesch about speaking of war as ‘just’ in the sense of something which might be viewed as untainted, even when it is divinely sanctioned: “… sin is always present in war. Indeed, sin is accentuated in war. It comes to fruition in war, even if war has God’s secret sanction. Because its immediate cause is sin, it brings with it the penalty of divine judgment. Because of blood on his hands, David was not permitted to build the temple, even though the wars he engaged in presumably had God’s blessing (1 Kings 5:3; 1 Chron 22:8 )” (Bloesch, op cit, p. 290)."
I will also add:
"The ethic of Jesus expressed in the so-called Sermon on the Mount was given to disciples, not to nations. If the radical ethic of nonresistance were applied directly to nations, it would mean the end of all civil government" The principle of nonresistance or no retaliation can be a goal or ideal in the social arena, but never a political strategy of a nation" -Donald Bloesch, Freedom for Obedience, p. 293
I. The Sixth Commandment - originally written by David Hemlock.
“The sixth commandment forbids murder. The ethical theology that lies behind this prohibition is the fact that all men and women have been created in the image of God (Gen 1:26-26; 9:6). While Hebrew possesses seven words for killing, the word used here, rasah, appears only forty-seven times in the OT. If any one of the seven words could signify “murder” where the factors of premeditation and intentionality are present, this is the verb… Without exception, however, in later periods (e.g. Ps 94:6; Prov 22:13; Isa 1:21; Hos 4:2; 6:9; Jer 7:9) it carries the idea of murder with intentional violence. Every one of these instances stresses the act or allegation of premeditation and deliberateness –and that is what is at the heart of this verb. Thus this prohibition does not apply to beasts (Gen 9:3), to defending one’s home from night-time burglars (Ex22:2), to accidental killings (Deut 19:5), to the execution of murderers by the state (Gen 9:6); or to involvement with one’s nation in certain types of war as illustrated by Israel’s history. It does apply, however, to self-murder (i.e. suicide), to all accessories to murder (2 Sam 12:9), and to those who have authority but fail to use it to punish known murderers (1 Kings 21:19)” Kaiser, Walter C., Exodus, in Gaebelein, Frank E., ed., EBC, vol. 1, pp. 424f.
“The sixth commandment in its original meaning indubitably referred to murder, not war.” –Donald Bloesch
II. Christian Ethics and Life Taking: General Considerations
“Life-taking is hateful, but life-saving is loving. Hence, it is an axiom of the Christian love-ethic that life-sacrificing is justifiable only if life-saving is thereby accomplishable. Life-taking as such is never the obligation of love, but sacrificing a life to save lives can be demanded by love… (Geisler, Norman, The Christian Ethic of Love, p. 118).
“To kill in the name of Christ and in order to advance the kingdom of Christ is expressly forbidden by Jesus (Mt 26:52, 53). Yet sometimes we have to take up the sword in order to preserve life, and this is permitted in the Bible but as something that pertains to the passing aeon, the world of sin and darkness, not to the new age of the kingdom of God. Since we belong to the old age as well as to the new, we act in two roles: as responsible citizens of the state, which can only maintain itself by force, and as ambassadors of the kingdom of Christ, which maintains itself solely by works of faith and love. The ethic of Jesus expressed in the so-called Sermon on the Mount was given to disciples, not to nations. If the radical ethic of nonresistance were applied directly to nations, it would mean the end of all civil government. Yet the church, which is under this higher command, can be a guide to the nations. It is the moral monitor or the conscience of the state. In Romans 13 the power of the state to wield the sword is expressly acknowledged by Paul; at the same time, the sixth commandment is vigorously reaffirmed. The principle of nonresistance or no retaliation can be a goal or ideal in the social arena, but never a political strategy.” (Bloesch, Donald, Freedom for Obedience (NY: Harper and Row, 1987), 292-293
Even Wolfhardt Pannenberg, who maintains no war is ‘just,’ agrees a nation may have sufficient grounds to engage in war, e.g. in the instance of unprovoked attack, or even pre-emptively to “anticipate an attack that is certain to come.” (Wolfhardt Pannenberg, Ethics, p. 179).
Augustine argued that although Christians should not defend themselves individually, they were required to act in defense of a defenseless neighbor. As Norman Geisler observes, “Vengeance does belong to the Lord and engaging in wars out of vindictive motives is wrong. But justice is, in part, man’s cause and the defense of the innocent is not wrong” (Geisler, Norman, The Christian Ethic of Love, p. 121).
We cannot fully enter into the complex maze of Just War Theory in philosophy and theology which has remained a major field of inquiry from Augustine to the present. But some widely discussed principles can be mentioned in passing:
War must be declared and engaged in by proper authority (Rom 13:4).
All attempts at peaceful negotiations have first failed (Rom 12:18; Heb 12:14; Deut 20:10; i.e. war must be undertaken only as a last resort).
Justly waged (Deut 20:19, 20 contra “scorched earth”; avoid unnecessary destruction, especially of that essential to continuation of life after war; avoidance of indiscriminate killing of non-combatants, etc.).
Protection of the innocent is a demand of love (Gen 14:14f).
Persons are more valuable than things (the OT represents the first time in human history this principle was affirmed).
Persons who respect personhood are to be preferred over those who do not.
Many lives are of more value than few lives.
Realistic expectation of success.
These principles notwithstanding, I cannot help but agree with the reservations expressed by Pannenberg and Bloesch about speaking of war as ‘just’ in the sense of something which might be viewed as untainted, even when it is divinely sanctioned: “… sin is always present in war. Indeed, sin is accentuated in war. It comes to fruition in war, even if war has God’s secret sanction. Because its immediate cause is sin, it brings with it the penalty of divine judgment. Because of blood on his hands, David was not permitted to build the temple, even though the wars he engaged in presumably had God’s blessing (1 Kings 5:3; 1 Chron 22:8 )” (Bloesch, op cit, p. 290)."
I will also add:
"The ethic of Jesus expressed in the so-called Sermon on the Mount was given to disciples, not to nations. If the radical ethic of nonresistance were applied directly to nations, it would mean the end of all civil government" The principle of nonresistance or no retaliation can be a goal or ideal in the social arena, but never a political strategy of a nation" -Donald Bloesch, Freedom for Obedience, p. 293
Upvote
0
chingchang
Newbie
- Jul 17, 2008
- 2,038
- 101
- Faith
- Christian Seeker
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Libertarian
Upvote
0
My personal opinion on this is that through surrender to the Holy Spirit, we can have that connection to God which will help to lead us to what action is needed in each situation. I feel that at times force is justified but we should always remember that mercy is what God wants.
Force should never exceed what is necessary and we should be prepared to die, without lifting a finger, if that is what God calls for us to do.
Upvote
0
- Oct 30, 2003
- 8,898
- 475
- Faith
- Calvinist
- Marital Status
- Married
In the correct context it can be right for a Christian to use violence.
Upvote
0
Walter Kovacs
Justice is coming, no matter what we do.
- Jan 22, 2011
- 1,922
- 91
- Faith
- Christian Seeker
- Marital Status
- In Relationship
Upvote
0
Ishraqiyun
Fanning the Divine Spark
“You have heard that it was said, ‘Eye for eye, and tooth for tooth.’[a] 39 But I tell you, do not resist an evil person. If anyone slaps you on the right cheek, turn to them the other cheek also. 40 And if anyone wants to sue you and take your shirt, hand over your coat as well. 41 If anyone forces you to go one mile, go with them two miles. 42 Give to the one who asks you, and do not turn away from the one who wants to borrow from you." Matthew 5:38-48
Notice that he said "you have heard" and then mentions eye for eye and tooth for tooth.As opposed to that he instead wants us to turn other cheek.. give your cloak..etc. We are talking about something that can be a little more than a love tap or a disrespectful slap. You usually don't loose an eye or a tooth from one of those! The old defunct law of eye for eye also demands life for life. Christ tells us we are no longer under that. We do good to those who do evil to us.
Matt 5:39 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.
Can you kill someone without resisting them ?
Last edited:
Upvote
0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums
Sum1sGruj
Well-Known Member
- May 9, 2011
- 535
- 9
- 36
- Faith
- Christian
- Marital Status
- Single
- Politics
- US-Libertarian
From what I understand, the old laws of chivalry were based on Biblical ideas. That is, for example, when armies met in the field, the generals met in the middle to try and negotiate a way out of battle.
The chivalric code for knights included integrity and fortitude.
Christians are not permitted to take life unless it is to save others. We protect life, as we are pro-life.
There are a couple reasons for this. The obvious is that doing otherwise is manslaughter, or perhaps murder depending on the circumstances.
The other is that killing in such a way only continues a cycle of death.
The chivalric code for knights included integrity and fortitude.
Christians are not permitted to take life unless it is to save others. We protect life, as we are pro-life.
There are a couple reasons for this. The obvious is that doing otherwise is manslaughter, or perhaps murder depending on the circumstances.
The other is that killing in such a way only continues a cycle of death.
Upvote
0
To answer your question, of course non-resistance is Biblical. Jesus teaches it in many places. I'm not actually a pacifist myself. In the end I think it's better to restrain evil than to let it take over. So obviously I don't think non-resistance is the only position a Christian can take. But it's easy to justify, and I certainly respect the people who follow it.
Upvote
0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums
Ishraqiyun
Fanning the Divine Spark
I've seen people try to strain logic to find a loophole in that. Like- "Hey, I'm not resisting him I'm just killing him!" Or maybe, " I'll turn the other cheek after he is dead."
Upvote
0
Zebra1552
Urban Nomad. Literally.
- Nov 2, 2007
- 14,460
- 820
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Christian
- Marital Status
- In Relationship
- Politics
- US-Others
This was a severe insult in that culture. It would be like in America if we said that your father was an abusive alcoholic and your mother was a strumpet. The point is not to return the insult, but to basically say, 'You're right, insult me some more' The Greek behind 'evil' is more accurately saying 'Don't resist an annoying jerk'. It's not talking about those causing physical harm.
Here's a shining example. I was pushing carts yesterday, and this lady cuts 2 feet in front of the line I'm pushing and I have to swerve to miss her. I say excuse me so she knows I'm there and doesn't walk into the carts that are now right behind her. She goes off on me for being rude and accuses me of yelling at her and says she ought to report me. I replied by telling her that my statement was for her safety and that if she felt the need to report me, go for it. My supervisors got a real kick out of it and my manager joked about it later.
The point isn't to lay down and take it, the point is to not return the favor.
Upvote
0
Ishraqiyun
Fanning the Divine Spark
Then why was that compared to the old law of eye for eye , tooth for tooth ? Losing an eye can be pretty violent.
Upvote
0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums
Ishraqiyun
Fanning the Divine Spark
Yes and Christ tells us to behave in a different manner. Instead of taking eye for eye or life for life we are supposed to turn the other cheek and not resist evil. If someone steals our shirt we give them our cloak as well. This isn't simply limited to a person insulting you. A person might even try to kill you or take your eye and you are not to do the same back to them. This isn't easy and I understand why people would look for an out. It's certainly a "hard saying" of Jesus. Who can be that perfect?
Upvote
0
Similar threads
