Jesus and nonviolence

Halbhh said:

Ah, see you are presuming (reasonably) that there is no afterlife....

Click to expand...

If human consciousness somehow persists through death is irrelevant to the way things work without the force of the state to keep order.

Desk trauma said:

I'm talking about the implications of a society taking to your ideology.

No law and the violent few get to take what they like.

Click to expand...

Hmmmm....well, that does sound very much like precisely what we already have, in several ways, both the physically violent still being violent at will anyway, despite policing, and next, the thieves of various kinds, including those with the law on their side, taking what they want, regardless. That's just....human life as it has been and still is.

You might have a more optimistic version of the effect of force used in policing than I do. I think police are only effective in a good way == say the good outcome of NYC vs the bad outcome of Chicago -- when the police themselves help increase the civility of the city by themselves being civil and encouraging civil behavior.

It was very smart for NYC to outlaw the normal rude honking of cars on the streets still going on in the 1990s, and impose fines for rude honking. NYC became increasingly a safer and safer city after such increases in general civil behavior.

Jesuscentered said:

But I'm not talking about the society at large. I'm talking about Christians and what WE should be doing. They are separate... or at least they should be.

Click to expand...

Christians are the clear majority in the US. Unless you just brush off all those not holding to your views.

Halbhh said:

It was very smart for NYC to outlaw the normal rude honking of cars on the streets still going on in the 1990s, and impose fines for rude honking. NYC became increasingly a safer and safer city after such increases in general civil behavior.

Click to expand...

How horrifying! The state using force! If only they would stop and take up nonviolence.

Desk trauma said:

How horrifying! The state using force! If only they would stop and take up nonviolence.

Click to expand...

But that's just what they didn't do. No guns.

How did it work in the minds of the people, to change them? Answer -- that such honking was now to be considered uncivil, and so the ideal of what was normal decent behavior changed for the typical citizen.

Typical people don't want to be considered a socially wrong person.

If a new law says don't litter, then the reason the majority of people will in time actually stop littering is that on a personal level most people in their own minds choose to avoid doing what they now think is wrong.

It's a battle of ideas. See?

Most criminals feel justified in their actions. To change them, you have to change their minds.

Halbhh said:

But that's just what they didn't do. No guns.

Click to expand...

Every action that the state takes is done at gun point.

Unless there was no consciences for refusing to pay those fines?

Halbhh said:

If it was literally just that, I'd agree with you.

But it isn't. No one is "slain" for merely refusing a "reign over them".

Remember this is a "parable". That means it is very much like a poem, and uses metaphor.

Here's another explanation from scripture that is not a parable, and doesn't use metaphor, and will help you begin to get more of the accurate meaning --

" 6 God “will repay each person according to what they have done."

7 To those who by persistence in doing good seek glory, honor and immortality, he will give eternal life.

8 But for those who are self-seeking and who reject the truth and follow evil, there will be wrath and anger.

9 There will be trouble and distress for every human being who does evil: first for the Jew, then for the Gentile; 10 but glory, honor and peace for everyone who does good: first for the Jew, then for the Gentile.

11 For God does not show favoritism.

------

So, in reading in scripture, we learn by experience it is not possible to understand many things without reading entire books through, from beginning to end.

But after you do, then you learn much, and much becomes clear that was mistaken at first look, before one has the entire book in their mind.

Click to expand...

My point is, he is not non-violent.

ananda said:

My point is, he is not non-violent.

Click to expand...

Sincerely, I think He is non violent, and in all the scriptures. An example of those trying to claim He was violent was to point out how He drove out the animals and overturned the money changers tables at the temple. But, I have actual experience driving animals, cattle, once. From real life experience I learned to drive animals you make noises and wave ropes and such in the air, and they go. That's how it is done by those that are accustomed to being around animals. The text reads that He then talked to the pigeon sellers next. See? After.

15 So he made a whip out of cords, and drove all from the temple courts, both sheep and cattle; he scattered the coins of the money changers and overturned their tables. 16 To those who sold doves he said, “Get these out of here! Stop turning my Father’s house into a market!”

Of course if He had driven out the people with the whip, then how could He have then talked to them? Ergo, He did not hit people with the whip, and further, it's unlikely He would even need to hit animals either, by my experience, and why should I presume He knew less about animals than me? He grew up in a animal keeping culture.

Each instance that is imagined to be Christ doing violence turns out not to be once you get the text accurately and more fully. It turns out to be non violent.

Desk trauma said:

Every action that the state takes is done at gun point.

Unless there was no consciences for refusing to pay those fines?

Click to expand...

I bet some resisted fines, but most simply changed because they did not want to be a social wrongdoer!

It's about ideas largely. It's for most people a question of what they think and believe. When people riot for example, it's because of thoughts, ideas, beliefs. Such as a belief in injustice in the police or in a city, for example. The belief is what actually causes many to riot.

How are these verses explained?

John {2:15} And when he had made a scourge of
small cords, he drove them all out of the temple, and the sheep, and the oxen; and poured out the changers’ money, and overthrew the tables;

Matthew {10:34} Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword.
Luke {22:36} Then said he unto them, But now, he that hath a purse, let him take [it,] and likewise [his] scrip: and he that hath no sword, let him sell his garment, and buy one.

zephcom said:

I think you have laid out the case for nonviolence as it regards Jesus reasonably well. I have read through the three pages of comments and I see objections which I have encountered over and over again when discussing the same topic. Things like defending oneself or one's family or what happens to a country that tries non-violence or how Jesus just plain didn't mean what He said but meant something else entirely.

I think it is important to note that conventional thinking, physical realm thinking, is deeply ingrained in the human mind. Humans have been fighting, killing, defending etc since the beginning of time. Each of us has been raised on the idea of being the 'hero' who saves someone by taking on the evil person and winning. I talk to people constantly who are STILL taking the credit for 'saving' Europe 70 years ago. And none are old enough to have actually done that.

What Jesus taught is such a radical concept that it runs counter to all of the physical realm thinking. We are so convinced that if 'we' have a bad enough evil that 'we' can conquer all other peoples, THEN we will have peace because everyone will love us for conquering everyone else.

World history shows that is completely wrong. No conquering nation which came to rule a large portion of the world has ever been benevolent.

The radical concept Jesus taught is that only love, the kind of love that comes from God, is the only thing that will conquer evil. Two things happen as soon as a person is faced with that concept. The first is -I- will be killed and then evil will not respond to even Divine Love.

The honest answer is that 1) you most likely WILL be killed and 2) using evil to kill evil has failed for over 5,000 years and with the fire power now available, evil is able to end life on this planet completely.

Insanity has been defined as doing the same thing over and over again while expecting a different outcome. Using evil to defeat evil has not worked.

Jesus says love will work. Jesus is considered by close to a third of the world population as God Almighty. Wouldn't if make sense that if the Being who is considered God Almighty says to do something that maybe those who believe in Him and are counting on Him to punch their ticket to Heaven would do as they are told???

Two BILLION people all practicing Loving Behavior according the teaching of their God should make quite a dent in the evil in the world. If nothing else, they would have removed the evil THEY would have been responsible for.

Unfortunately, we have two thousand years of history which shows that Jesus' teaching will never take hold and be practiced by anyone but the stray radical too stupid to understand that Jesus was stupid too.

Click to expand...

Your words in that last paragraph certainly betray the rest of what you said, which for the most part, was making pretty good sense.

Jesuscentered did an excellent job of laying out the Anabaptist position but still did not convince you. I suspect that your deist position will not allow you to even consider that what appears as stupidity to the world is in actuality the correct way. The cross, for all the good it has done, just does not make any sense to the carnally minded, but Jesus said it would be that way and also, that the good it has accomplished will eventually tip the scales in favor of those who believe.

All human hearts know that peace and nonviolence are eternal values and stamped into every soul, but most cannot find the fortitude necessary to confirm those values by daily action. Therefore Jesus says, initially, that we are not to try to reason things out but to rather trust Him in faith that He is going to save them out of this world. John 7:17 says, “If your will is to do the will of the Father THEN you will know….” The secret of attaining the final reward is to maintain that trust and faith given to them by Jesus’ own example of how to conduct one’s self while in a now foreign land, and the answer to that mystery is encapsulated in the word “death.” The flesh, i.e. man’s ability to reason, is diametrically opposed to the constitution of God’s Kingdom and simply cannot grasp how death leads to life. They believe that life has been given to them and that that life must be preserved at all cost, and therefore, even Christians, of all strains, except those “radicals,” according to their own good “reasoning” take control of their own lives to save themselves, which counters the teaching and example of Jesus, the Apostles, and nearly three hundred years of the primitive Church, before Augustine cast the spell of self-preservation upon the Church.

So, what you have concluded as stupid is not stupid at all, it is the Divine plan which He Himself said would only make sense to a very few and that those few would be accounted as fools and stupid by the others, as history has confirmed. Through your words, you have actually fulfilled the words of Jesus who is working in the hearts of those who trust Him and are led by His Spirit. The way is still narrow and the gate is still strait to the self-conscious.

SteveIndy said:

Christ came to introduce the the Kingdom of God. Anyone who is born into this Kingdom becomes a citizen with a new King and new Constitution. We are no longer citizens of an earthly kingdom. Christ laid down some things in Matthew 5,6, and 7 that are representative of those who are in this new Kingdom. Those characteristics are the same that will be representative of those in the new Kingdom. In other words, we are Kingdom citizens living on earth and are governed by the constitution of Heaven. If the taking of life will be wrong in the new Kingdom it wrong now, and that goes for self-defense also. Christ came and lived the life that we are to live. You can dance with the world and get creative with words such as "vengeance" and self-defense" but Christ said, "follow Me." Christ never came to destroy men's lives but to save them.

Click to expand...

already dealt with what was in matthew 5. the passage on turning the other cheek was, again, responding to an old law about retribution or "eye for an eye"(exodus 21:22-25). we are not to attempt to get even with people who do harm to us. it says nothing in this passage about protecting oneself from harm(which doesn't necessitate taking a life BTW). making an accurate distinction between 'self-defense' and 'revenge' is not "playing with words". you're basically saying that it would be sinful to hire a defense lawyer if someone tries to sew me.

there will be no death or sin in the new kingdom so taking life will be inapplicable. these are eschatological realities, however, that do not apply to this current fallen world. also, the 6th commandment says "you shall not "murder"". this is another important distinction. to 'kill' is to take life regardless of the reason or circumstances while 'murder' is the unjustified taking of life.

what biblical precedent do you even have to claim that believers must be pacifists? david was not regarded sinful by God for going to war and being the man who had slain his 10s of thousands. the OT is full of war stories and there is no NT scripture that prohibits war. in fact, romans 13:1-7 gives the government the right to defend it's subjects as well as punish wrongdoers. the only thing prohibited are acts of revenge(romans 12:17-21).

what if the command in Isaiah 1:17 to rebuke the oppressor involves using force to protect the oppressed? same for Isaiah 58:6 and proverbs 31:8-9. following these commands would call us to "resist an evil person". does scripture contradict itself? certainly not! me striking someone on the cheek because they struck me isn't self-defense. it's retaliation. there's a difference.

proper exegesis and biblical hermeneutics must be brought to bare on these matters.

Jesuscentered said:

No where in the Bible does Jesus explain it in the terms you've described.

Click to expand...

I suppose I don't understand what you referring to here. are you saying "eye for an eye" and "love your neighbor and hate your enemy" don't refer to revenge, retaliation, and retribution?

Halbhh said:

Sincerely, I think He is non violent, and in all the scriptures. An example of those trying to claim He was violent was to point out how He drove out the animals and overturned the money changers tables at the temple. But, I have actual experience driving animals, cattle, once. From real life experience I learned to drive animals you make noises and wave ropes and such in the air, and they go. That's how it is done by those that are accustomed to being around animals. The text reads that He then talked to the pigeon sellers next. See? After.

15 So he made a whip out of cords, and drove all from the temple courts, both sheep and cattle; he scattered the coins of the money changers and overturned their tables. 16 To those who sold doves he said, “Get these out of here! Stop turning my Father’s house into a market!”

Of course if He had driven out the people with the whip, then how could He have then talked to them? Ergo, He did not hit people with the whip, and further, it's unlikely He would even need to hit animals either, by my experience, and why should I presume He knew less about animals than me? He grew up in a animal keeping culture.

Each instance that is imagined to be Christ doing violence turns out not to be once you get the text accurately and more fully. It turns out to be non violent.

Click to expand...

No doubt you see your scriptures as portraying Jesus as non-violent. On the other hand, I do see Jesus teaching that he will employ violence.

THE W said:

already dealt with what was in matthew 5. the passage on turning the other cheek was, again, responding to an old law about retribution or "eye for an eye"(exodus 21:22-25). we are not to attempt to get even with people who do harm to us. it says nothing in this passage about protecting oneself from harm(which doesn't necessitate taking a life BTW). making an accurate distinction between 'self-defense' and 'revenge' is not "playing with words". you're basically saying that it would be sinful to hire a defense lawyer if someone tries to sew me.

there will be no death or sin in the new kingdom so taking life will be inapplicable. these are eschatological realities, however, that do not apply to this current fallen world. also, the 6th commandment says "you shall not "murder"". this is another important distinction. to 'kill' is to take life regardless of the reason or circumstances while 'murder' is the unjustified taking of life.

what biblical precedent do you even have to claim that believers must be pacifists? david was not regarded sinful by God for going to war and being the man who had slain his 10s of thousands. the OT is full of war stories and there is no NT scripture that prohibits war. in fact, romans 13:1-7 gives the government the right to defend it's subjects as well as punish wrongdoers. the only thing prohibited are acts of revenge(romans 12:17-21).

what if the command in Isaiah 1:17 to rebuke the oppressor involves using force to protect the oppressed? same for Isaiah 58:6 and proverbs 31:8-9. following these commands would call us to "resist an evil person". does scripture contradict itself? certainly not! me slapping someone back because they slapped me isn't self-defense. it's retaliation. there's a difference.

proper exegesis and biblical hermeneutics must be brought to bare on these matters.

Click to expand...

Jesus does not make the distinction between self-defense and vengeance only men do that. As far as suing in court, Jesus has forbade that. Jesus says that if you are sued at the law for your coat that you should give them your cloak also. The difficulty with these things come into play when men, who have preconceived ideas of right and wrong, use verbal gymnastics to see in those words thing which are not there like self-defense and vengeance. The 6th commandment is another example where a distinction is made between killing and murder, in the mind of the Almighty there is no difference. Jesus aid to the Pharisees that they twisted the Scriptures so that they could justify their evil ways; we men do the same thing by making our petty distinctions on words.

You are right that there will be no death or killing in the new Kingdom and Jesus said that we are born into that Kingdom when we are saved. Are we not subject to the laws of that Kingdom now? Yes, we are subject to those new laws now, and we are subject to our new King only, and His ways. The Kingdom of Heaven has come now, here, and we are citizens of that Kingdom.

The Biblical precedence is summarized by Jesus in Matthew 5:39, “Resist not an evil person.” That precedence is reinforced by the very life of Jesus, all the Apostles, and three hundred years of the primitive Church. The O.T. cannot be used to justify your point because it has been overridden by the New Testament as all Christians know. The O.T. was the shadow of which the N.T. is the substance. Even Moses told us that another Prophet was to come and that we are to listen to Him in ALL things. That Prophet was Jesus and He changed everything. That was His point when He said that you cannot put new wine into old wineskins, and when He said in Matthew that, “You have heard it said, but I say….” Six times He used that term in effect abrogating the Old and Instituting the New. Also, Paul in several places in Hebrews say the same thing. All of those early apostles set a precedence for non-resistance to evil and signed their declaration with their blood. David’s actions were only a shadow of something else which we are to understand through the eyes of Jesus and the New Testament.

Christ never came to do away with human government; on the contrary, Christ was the One who established human government. Human government and Divine government are two different things. Human government was instituted for people of the world, run by the world, to control people of the world. Born again Christians are no longer citizens of human world governments and are not subject to their laws. We are commanded to obey those laws of men as long as they do not interfere with the laws of our King. Yes, the world will war and kill, but we are not of the world, are we? No, we are not. So, are we to kill as the world does? No, our King has said we are not to kill or to do violence to any man, nor are we to judge men in the world’s courts. Therefore Christians cannot participate in governments, vote, sit on juries, be policemen, members of the armed forces, or anything like that. Our King has given us different marching orders like: overcoming evil with good, turning the other cheek, forgiveness, mercy, and resisting not an evil person. Did He not say that we would be as vulnerable as sheep amongst wolves? Why? Because we will not utilize the methods and weapons of this world but only spiritual weapons as Pauls states, "The weapons of our warfare are not carnal but spiritual...."

Scripture does not contradict itself, it is men who lack understanding who believe there is a contradiction where really is just lack of understanding. You are correct that “proper exegesis and biblical hermeneutics must be brought to bear on these matters,” because we want to force our presupposed feelings and belief systems onto Scripture instead of accepting the words of the Master.

SteveIndy said:

The O.T. cannot be used to justify your point because it has been overridden by the New Testament as all Christians know.

Click to expand...

this is swiftly refuted by Christ own words in matthew 5:17-20.

the sermon on the mount didn't do away with OT law. this would be an improper dispensational view. it established it just as Paul reiterated in romans 3:31. it actually amplified what the law said. the law to love your enemies isn't as new as you may believe(exodus 23:4-5). what you would need to do is find where in scripture acts of self-defense and just wars which were established in the OT have been abrogated. there are parts of OT law that have indeed been abrogated(ie dietary laws, and feast laws).

what you're saying sounds nice...it's just not quite biblical.