Jesus and Violence

[FullyAmbivalent]

I really am not trying to be mean or rude but I really do not understand the views and opinions cast by many Christians on the subject of war and violence.

So many of you preach for us to support violence as a means to end violence but Jesus is recorded as teaching in Matthew 5:38-39 that we should not seek revenge for the wrongs done to us and it is said in Matthew 5:43-44 that we should love our enemy! Not hate and slander our enemy. In Romans 12:14 "Bless those who persecute you; bless and do not curse" and in Romans 12:17 "Do not repay anyone evil for evil" and once more in Romans 12:19-21 "Do not take revenge, my friends, but leave room for God's wrath, for it is written: 'It is mine to avenge; I will repay,' says the Lord. On the contrary: 'If your enemy is hungry, feed him; if he is thirsty, give him something to drink. In doing this, you will heap burning coals on his head.' Do not be overcome by evil, but overcome evil with good."

As you read above, we are taught to love our enemies. If you look forward in Romans you will read in Chapter 13:10 "Love does no harm to its neighbor. Therefore love is the fulfillment of the law." So to love your enemies means to do no harm to them.

I will end this with Romans 2:3-4, "So when you, a mere man, pass judgment on them and yet do the same things, do you think you will escape God's judgment? Or do you show contempt for the riches of his kindness, tolerance and patience, not realizing that God's kindness leads you toward repentance?" To murder for any reason is a sin. So to kill to defend your belief and your way of life is also a sin. It is the easy way out of our problems on this world. There is no but or if or when or why when God tells us not to kill. He simply says, "You shall not murder". To kill is a sin.

If you had true faith in the teachings of Christ you would gladly give yourself as a living sacrifice for your faith. What does this mean? It means you will follow the true teachings of peace (nonviolence) EVEN if it means death for you. But in doing so you are living like Jesus and living as God demands; you will be reward in the end.
To die for your faith is a great thing, but if you kill for your faith you have already lost it.

 

[Dak man]

I agree completely. But I haven't seen that many threads of people supporting acts of violence out of faith. Most who argue for the war in Iraq and Afghanistan do so because they feel it is the best way to protect our interests. Not saying it's right, but I don't see anyone arguing that it is just from a religious standpoint because I agree, the Bible gives us no justification for war.

 

[Eternal Mindset]

Yeah...
I have thought about this, and I don't think I could ever kill someone to save my own life.
I think it's good for Christians to remember that death isn't a bad thing, it's just being born into your eternal spiritual form.
Remember:
Even if we die today; we will live tomorrow.

In brotherly love,
Eternal Mindset

 

[12volt_man]

I really am not trying to be mean or rude but I really do not understand the views and opinions cast by many Christians on the subject of war and violence.

So many of you preach for us to support violence as a means to end violence but Jesus is recorded as teaching in Matthew 5:38-39 that we should not seek revenge for the wrongs done to us and it is said in Matthew 5:43-44 that we should love our enemy!

The problem is that, in both of these cases, Jesus is speaking to His followers, not to the government. Further, He is speaking specifically about facing violence and persecution for the sake of the Gospel.

Remember that it was Jesus who ordered his disciples to go out and buy swords in order to protect themselves from bandits on their missionary journeys.

It is also Christ who acknowledged to Pilate that Pilate's authority to judge Him and to carry out capital punishment comes from God, Himself.

Notice also, Jesus and Peter in the Garden of Gethsemene. Jesus doesn't lecture Peter on the immorality of using violence to protect them, but warns him only that the soldiers will kill him if he continues.

I'm curious to know why you think, if Jesus opposes violence, why so much of His teaching contains violent imagery?

In Romans 12:14 "Bless those who persecute you; bless and do not curse" and in Romans 12:17 "Do not repay anyone evil for evil" and once more in Romans 12:19-21 "Do not take revenge, my friends, but leave room for God's wrath, for it is written: 'It is mine to avenge; I will repay,' says the Lord. On the contrary: 'If your enemy is hungry, feed him; if he is thirsty, give him something to drink. In doing this, you will heap burning coals on his head.' Do not be overcome by evil, but overcome evil with good."

Remember, though, that Paul is writing this to the church concerning their behavior, not the government.

Remember that Paul also tells us in Romans that God has ordained the government with the authority to "wield the sword to punish evildoers".

I will end this with Romans 2:3-4, "So when you, a mere man, pass judgment on them and yet do the same things, do you think you will escape God's judgment? Or do you show contempt for the riches of his kindness, tolerance and patience, not realizing that God's kindness leads you toward repentance?"

Actually, you've taken this woefully out of context. This is referring to judging spiritual judgements, specifically, of the Jews.

To murder for any reason is a sin. So to kill to defend your belief and your way of life is also a sin.

Do you have scripture to back this up?

There is no but or if or when or why when God tells us not to kill. He simply says, "You shall not murder". To kill is a sin.

Actually, He says thou shalt do no murder.

Notice that the word translated as "murder" here is ratsach and that we never see the word or the negative language associated with it associated with killing in warfare, self defense or capital punishment.

If you had true faith in the teachings of Christ you would gladly give yourself as a living sacrifice for your faith. What does this mean? It means you will follow the true teachings of peace (nonviolence) EVEN if it means death for you. But in doing so you are living like Jesus and living as God demands; you will be reward in the end.
To die for your faith is a great thing, but if you kill for your faith you have already lost it.

I'm sorry, but you haven't demonstrated this.

Yes, we should be willing to die for our faith but this does not negate the role of civil government or the role of the Christian in it.

 

[Dad Ernie]

Great response 12VoltMan. These "pacificists" continue to take scripture out of context or misconstrue it and distort it. How sad. I hope they read the "end of the story" because adding to or taking away from the scriptures is serious business.

Blessings,

Dad Ernie

 

[sinner/SAVED]

Remember that it was Jesus who ordered his disciples to go out and buy swords in order to protect themselves from bandits on their missionary journeys.

Where is this written?

 

[DailyBlessings]

Where is this written?

I believe he's referring to this passage, from Luke, Chapter 22:


"36Then 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.

37For 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.

38And they said, Lord, behold, here are two swords. And he said unto them, It is enough."



Though there are many interpretations for it besides the one 12volt_man ascribes to. It is a warning against harder times to come; that much is certain. However, He may not have meant literal swords so much as swords and armor of the spirit, and this is implied in the text. If literal swords were meant, then why would two swords among twelve men possibly be enough? Clearly it wasn't, and even when one of these swords was drawn at Gethsemane, He ordered it sheathed again. If it were "enough" of a physical defense, were this the true meaning, then He would not need to tell Peter to stop, later, would he?

I would say that the Bible is not clear on the matter of violence in general one way or the other. However, violence borne of hatred or self-interest is certainly wrong. The scripture already quoted is enough to prove this, and I shall add another- "Beloved, let us love one another. For love is of God, and everyone that loveth is born of God, and knoweth God. He that loveth not, knoweth not God, for God is love." We are not permitted to hate our enemies, but are commanded to love them as our own. Taking this into account, would you kill someone that you love before you had exhausted all possible alternatives?

 

[jbarcher]

Lemme look for some posts I made on the subject and post the links here.

Edit: On Matt. 5:39, two posts..

http://www.christianforums.com/showthread.php?p=10544639&postcount=15
http://www.christianforums.com/showthread.php?p=10556006&postcount=22

 

[12volt_man]

I believe he's referring to this passage, from Luke, Chapter 22:


"36Then 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.

37For 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.

38And they said, Lord, behold, here are two swords. And he said unto them, It is enough."

Yes.

However, He may not have meant literal swords so much as swords and armor of the spirit, and this is implied in the text.

Actually, the opposite is implied. If Jesus were talking about "spiritual" swords, why would the deisciples need to sell their belongings to buy them?

Who does one buy a spiritual sword from and what is the going rate?

when one of these swords was drawn at Gethsemane, He ordered it sheathed again. If it were "enough" of a physical defense, were this the true meaning, then He would not need to tell Peter to stop, later, would he?

Again, Jesus was not telling Peter to stop because He was preaching against violence, but because Peter was one man surrounded by a squad of Roman soldiers. He would have been slaughtered.

Taking this into account, would you kill someone that you love before you had exhausted all possible alternatives?

If they threatened the life, safety or liberty of those I loved, absolutely.

 

[DailyBlessings]

Again, Jesus was not telling Peter to stop because He was preaching against violence, but because Peter was one man surrounded by a squad of Roman soldiers. He would have been slaughtered.

I didn't say he was.... Though I wonder where you got your interpretation of the passage. Jesus does not say "Stop before they kill you," he says "Enough of this!" And by the way, no squad of roman soldiers is mentioned either.

If they threatened the life, safety or liberty of those I loved, absolutely.

That's pretty harsh. You'd kill your own friends and family members in the name of "liberty" while other options remained? And you think that would be a Christian action?

 

[FullyAmbivalent]

God has set rules for us to follow. The rules are not above us. We are capable of following them. You shall not murder is one of those rules and as I stated in my original post there are no if, and, or, or buts. If we look at the texts in Deuteronomy 30:9-14 we see that God makes it very clear we have the ability to live righteously.



"Then the Lord your God will make you most prosperous in all the work of your hands and in the fruit of your womb, the young of your livestock and the crops of your land. The Lord will again delight in you and make you prosperous, just as he delighted in your fathers, if you obey the Lord your God and keep his commands and decrees that are written in this Book of the Law and turn to the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul. Now what I am commanding you today is not too difficult for you or beyond your reach. It is not up in heaven, so that you have to ask, 'Who will ascend into heaven to get it and proclaim it to us so we may obey it?' Nor is it beyond the sea, so that you have to ask, 'Who will cross the sea to get it and proclaim it to us so we may obey it?' No, the word is very near you; it is in your mouth and in your heart so you may obey it."



So tell me again how it is not possible for us to truly follow the law of God and live like Christ in a manner of non-violent compassion for every man, women, and child even if they do not share our views.



We are told that our only way to salvation is through Jesus. What does this mean? It means that our only way to salvation is living as Jesus did. To accept Jesus we most live as Jesus. We must repent from our evil way and live by the Law of God and Jesus. When did Jesus ever kill to further his message of love, compassion, and forgiveness? When did he ever use violence? When did Jesus ever hate? When did Jesus seek revenge? Do not tell me again that we are not capable of living in such a way. I have faith that my God, my creator, set rules he knew we could follow. In war, are you showing your faith in God or Country? In violent retribution are you showing your faith in God or yourself? I have faith that every deed will be accounted for at the end and that it is not my Job to avenge, hate, envy, or judge. Jesus and God set out the law that we are to Love, Forgive, Hope, and have Faith in God.

 

[12volt_man]

Jesus does not say "Stop before they kill you," he says "Enough of this!" And by the way, no squad of roman soldiers is mentioned either.

So, who do you believe arrested Jesus?

That's pretty harsh. You'd kill your own friends and family members in the name of "liberty" while other options remained? And you think that would be a Christian action?

Is that what I said?

 

[eclipsoul]

"Why do you call me, 'Lord, Lord,' but not do what I command? I will show
you what someone is like who comes to me, listens to my words, and acts of
them. That one is like a person building a house, who dug deeply and laid the
foundation on rock; when the flood came, the river burst against that house
but could not shake it because it had been well built. But the one who listens
and does not act is like a person who built a house on the ground without a
foundation. When the river burst against it, it collapsed at once and was
completely destroyed."

Does it not make your stomach turn to hear Christians deny Christ's
commands? Does it not make you sick to listen to them say, "We can ignore
Christ because the government says we can." Does it not make you ill to see
them blow children into pieces, to see them burn mothers into charcoal, to
see them deliver death and destruction, and then call it Christian?

Let us examine the claims of those who would deny Jesus clear commands:

"Love your enemies."
"Do not resist injury."
"Do good to those that hate you."

Jesus is speaking to His followers, not to the government.

You are absolutely correct - Jesus is talking to his followers, and not to
government. Does this mean his followers inside government can ignore him?

Are you truly suggesting that Christians can discard Christ's commands if they
work for the government?

Are you truly suggesting that Christians can flash their government ID at the
pearly gates of heaven, and use it as a 'get out of jail' free card?

Remember that it was Jesus who ordered his disciples to go out and buy swords in order to protect themselves from bandits on their missionary journeys.

How many times will this be used to say that Jesus loved violence? How many
times will Christians repeat the same mistake that the Apostles did, by
misunderstanding Jesus completely?

1) Jesus tells them that 2 swords is enough for 12 apostles.
2) Jesus tells them not to use the swords in the garden.
3) The apostles all died as martyrs without swords.

The "sword" refers to the coming persecutions of his followers.

It is also Christ who acknowledged to Pilate that Pilate's authority to judge Him and to carry out capital punishment comes from God, Himself.

So Pilate was a Saint?

Are these the well thought out and reasoned arguments that nullify Jesus'
command to 'love our enemies'?

Notice also, Jesus and Peter in the Garden of Gethsemene. Jesus doesn't lecture Peter on the immorality of using violence to protect them, but warns him only that the soldiers will kill him if he continues.

Negative, Ghost Rider! He doesn't say, "Peter, put down your sword,
otherwise they will kill you."

He says, "All who use the sword will die by the sword."

All.

I'm curious to know why you think, if Jesus opposes violence, why so much of His teaching contains violent imagery?

Because God judges. Man doesn't. Case closed.

Remember, though, that Paul is writing this to the church concerning their behavior, not the government.

Ahh, again, we see that Pilate, Nero, and Hitler are saints. Lets not forget
Stalin, either. Should we throw in Bush too?

Are we beginning to see how these arguments which deny Christ's commands,
are in fact merely a subtle form of idolatry?

Somehow, the Government's commands have trumped God's commands?
Somehow, Christians worship Government before God?

Yes, we should be willing to die for our faith but this does not negate the role of civil government or the role of the Christian in it.

Men pledge allegiance to our government, then they shoot our enemies, and
then when told that Jesus actually wants us to love our enemies, they flash
their government ID at us and grin.

Will they grin when God shows them the mutilated limbs and severed heads of
the millions of innocents that have been destroyed and annihilated by their
governments?

"But, eclipsoul, Paul tells us that God uses governments! The governments
serve God!"

God used Judas. God used Hitler. God used Nero.

Christians must choose. Will they worship their governments, or will they
worship Christ? Will they worship mere men and their orders, or will they
worship the Son of God and his commands?

It's pretty simple, folks. Just do it.

 

[eclipsoul]

Let's put the nail in this coffin. Let's finally put to rest the idea that we can
discard Christ's command because we happen to work for the government.

If God ordains governments, then Nazi Germany was God's servant.
If God ordains governments, then the Soviet Union was God's servant.

Clearly, God had nothing to do with the Nazi's state implemented holocaust.
Clearly, God has nothing to do with Stalin's state implemented Atheism.

Being in the government does not excuse Christians from following Christ's
commands. The government does not have the right to violate Christ's
commands.

The government can only be the servant of God when it follows the commands of Christ.

And Christ only has one command: Love.

The morality of the mob must be no different than the morality of the man.

These rationalizations which say that the individual has one set of morals,
while the government has another set of morals... well, I think it is plain to all
just how silly such a difference is. We all must follow Christ's commands,
within or without government. And when I say Christ's commands, I do mean
Jesus of Nazareth - the Son of God, the Prince of Peace. He came to earth
with a message and a mission. His message was Love and Peace. His mission
was Love and Peace.

And so is ours.
God bless!

 

[fragmentsofdreams]

So, who do you believe arrested Jesus?



Is that what I said?

Jesus was arrested by servants of the Sanhedran. His arrest was a Jewish matter until they handed him over to Pilate.

 

[12volt_man]

You are absolutely correct - Jesus is talking to his followers, and not to government. Does this mean his followers inside government can ignore him?

No, of course not.

Are you truly suggesting that Christians can discard Christ's commands if they work for the government?

No.

[How many times will this be used to say that Jesus loved violence?[/quote]

Actually, I never said (and I believe you know this) that Jesus "loved violence."

1) Jesus tells them that 2 swords is enough for 12 apostles.

Actually, the text doesn't say that He was speaking to twelve disciples.

2) Jesus tells them not to use the swords in the garden.

No, Jesus told Peter to put His sword away in the Garden. Peter was about to be massacred. Jesus, good friend that He was, warned Peter not to provoke the soldiers, who would have killed him.

3) The apostles all died as martyrs without swords.

Yes...and?

The "sword" refers to the coming persecutions of his followers.

So then why would they need to buy "coming persecution"? Who were they buying this "coming persecution from anyway"?

So Pilate was a Saint?

No, Pilate represented the government.

Are these the well thought out and reasoned arguments that nullify Jesus' command to 'love our enemies'?

None of these nullify Jesus' command to love our enemies. They are talking about two different things.

Negative, Ghost Rider! He doesn't say, "Peter, put down your sword,
otherwise they will kill you."

He says, "All who use the sword will die by the sword."

Jesus intention is clear. This is not a statement against violence across the board (otherwise He would have contradicted Himself), it is a warning to a friend who is about to do something foolish.

Because God judges. Man doesn't. Case closed.

So then, why does the Bible tell us that God has ordained government to judge and to carry out punishment?

Men pledge allegiance to our government, then they shoot our enemies, and then when told that Jesus actually wants us to love our enemies, they flash their government ID at us and grin.

Again, Jesus is telling us that we are to love our enemies. He says nothing about defending our country or protecting ourselves.

"But, eclipsoul, Paul tells us that God uses governments! The governments serve God!"

God used Judas. God used Hitler. God used Nero.

If the Bible tells us that God ordains the government to judge and punish evildoers, then doesn't the use of the phrase "evildoers" imply an objective moral standard?

Christians must choose. Will they worship their governments, or will they worship Christ? Will they worship mere men and their orders, or will they worship the Son of God and his commands?

But you haven't shown that the two contradict one another.

It's pretty simple, folks. Just do it.

It can't be that simple. You seem to have misunderstood quite a bit of it.

Let's put the nail in this coffin. Let's finally put to rest the idea that we can discard Christ's command because we happen to work for the government.

If God ordains governments, then Nazi Germany was God's servant.
If God ordains governments, then the Soviet Union was God's servant.

Clearly, God had nothing to do with the Nazi's state implemented holocaust.
Clearly, God has nothing to do with Stalin's state implemented Atheism.

God is no less sovereign over the wicked than He is the just. There are several examples in scripture where God allows wicked rulers to come to power for a time.

If God had nothing to do with Nazi Germany, were we wrong to stop them?

And Christ only has one command: Love.

Actually, that's not His only command. He has many other commands that you seem to be ignoring.

These rationalizations which say that the individual has one set of morals, while the government has another set of morals... well, I think it is plain to all just how silly such a difference is.

What is silly is that you assume to speak as an expert, but you don't understand the role or nature of government that most of us learned in fourth grade civics.

We all must follow Christ's commands, within or without government. And when I say Christ's commands, I do mean Jesus of Nazareth - the Son of God, the Prince of Peace.

So, does this include being subject to the laws and rulers over us?

He came to earth with a message and a mission. His message was Love and Peace. His mission was Love and Peace.

Funny, my Bible says that He came not to bring peace, but a sword.

 

[12volt_man]

Jesus was arrested by servants of the Sanhedran. His arrest was a Jewish matter until they handed him over to Pilate.

The text says that the man who had his ear cut off was a servant of the high priest so I don't doubt that they were present, but they had no legal authority to arrest him.

 

[fragmentsofdreams]

The text says that the man who had his ear cut off was a servant of the high priest so I don't doubt that they were present, but they had no legal authority to arrest him.

Consider John 18:31. Pilate indicates that the Jews had some authority to police themselves when he tells them to judge Jesus according to their own law. The reason they had to hand Jesus over was they did not have the power to execute anyone.

 

[12volt_man]

Consider John 18:31. Pilate indicates that the Jews had some authority to police themselves when he tells them to judge Jesus according to their own law. The reason they had to hand Jesus over was they did not have the power to execute anyone.

All Pilate is saying is, "Look, this is a family matter for you guys to settle. Leave me out of it".

They still had no legal authority to arrest Him and Pilate wouldn't have become involved at all if charges of treason hadn't come up.

 

[Mike2000]

I agree completely. But I haven't seen that many threads of people supporting acts of violence out of faith.

I disagree. They're called zionists. I couldn't help but reply to this thread since in my last thread I questioned some of the beliefs of zionists.

Zionists think that it's ok for Israelis to kill Palestinians and take their homes and land, supposedly "in the name of God". I find their beliefs twisted. I hardly think it was in God's plan to kill innocent people and drive them from their homes in his name.

I have two questions myself.

1) Will Israelis be excempt from God's judgement since they are killing people in his name?

2) Will zionists be excempt from God's jusdgement for condoning this since they are helping the cold blooded murder of people in God's name?