The use of force

[porcupine]

Under what conditions (if any) is a believer biblically justified in using force (up to and including deadly force) against another human being? Please cite scripture for conclusions.

 

[seebs]

Boy, that's a nice open-ended question.

If someone tries to get you to believe in other gods, there's Biblical justification for having him stoned to death. Also if kids sass back. On the other hand, you are not to resist the evil man, and if someone strikes you, you should turn the other cheek.

It takes a bit of sorting to get from the vast quantities of special cases and examples and stories into a coherent ethical standard for when violence is or is not acceptable.

 

[NotTroy]

I read a good argument recently for the use of force, including deadly force if required, in the case of self defence or defence of an innocent victim. Unfortunatly, the person who posted the argument used abortion as an example, specifically the killing of abortion doctors. Even though he made a good argument with lots of scripture to back him up, and stated in the first part of the post that he did not believe the killing of abortion doctors to be a good means of fighting abortion, the only replies to his argument were half baked appeals to emotion, followed by insults and threats. It was really sad to see that even with Christians, good arguments based on Scripture can be thrown out with little thought if the subject is contraversial enough and comes to a conclusion that people don't like.

 

[openeyes]

If I remember right the Christ himself sent some of the apsotles to "sell some goods and buy swords". For what other purpose would the possesion of a wepon be? Self defense. Although they did not need the wepons and as a matter of fact the mere brandishing of said wepon caused undue harm to a non-combatant.
So I say there is a call to defend yourself up to and including deadly force. Jesus did say to turn the other cheek, but I think he was speaking in the context of defending ones faith, in other words don't physically attack someone who attacks your faith.
I'm hoping this thread doesn't turn into an insultfest.

 

[porcupine]

Boy, that's a nice open-ended question.

If someone tries to get you to believe in other gods, there's Biblical justification for having him stoned to death. Also if kids sass back. On the other hand, you are not to resist the evil man, and if someone strikes you, you should turn the other cheek.

It takes a bit of sorting to get from the vast quantities of special cases and examples and stories into a coherent ethical standard for when violence is or is not acceptable.

You bring up interesting incidents of force in the Bible. Where you mention stoning and sassy kids, remember that what is in common here is that this is capital punishment administered by the authorities after due process of law (trial, etc.). That is one area where I believe there is justification a-la-Romans 13. It would be good to explore the limits there might be from God's perspective on what things the government may execute people for.

I think a lot of the "special cases" fall under similar categories -- war, self-defense, etc. Self-defense is interesting because of the verse you mention above. Is there a place for self-defense at all? Is there a place for defense, let's say, of your wife or child?

 

[Svt4Him]

Obey the laws of your land?

Turn the other cheek is an idiom.

As for a cite, we do have a gift called common sense. If I was to ask for a verse to prove we can drive cars, I don't think you'd find one.

 

[porcupine]

If I remember right the Christ himself sent some of the apsotles to "sell some goods and buy swords". For what other purpose would the possesion of a wepon be? Self defense. Although they did not need the wepons and as a matter of fact the mere brandishing of said wepon caused undue harm to a non-combatant.
So I say there is a call to defend yourself up to and including deadly force. Jesus did say to turn the other cheek, but I think he was speaking in the context of defending ones faith, in other words don't physically attack someone who attacks your faith.
I'm hoping this thread doesn't turn into an insultfest.

I was just reading about some who think there were some influences of the Essenes on Jesus' teaching (I don't think so, though the Essenes may have reached similar conclusions biblically). Josephus tells us that the Essenes rule was poverty -- no one owned anything. Like the disciples in the first sending forth, they did not carry anything with them when they travelled -- with one exception (says Josephus), a sword to defend against brigands.

I suspect Jesus' instuction in the second sending forth was for similar reason (though He told them to also carry other things, unlike the Essenes). Jesus was telling them that their travels would be "among wolves" from then on and to be realistic and prepared. This meant having a sword for defense. I don't think His instruction was solely related to the incident at His arrest.

 

[openeyes]

I was just reading about some who think there were some influences of the Essenes on Jesus' teaching (I don't think so, though the Essenes may have reached similar conclusions biblically). Josephus tells us that the Essenes rule was poverty -- no one owned anything. Like the disciples in the first sending forth, they did not carry anything with them when they travelled -- with one exception (says Josephus), a sword to defend against brigands.

I suspect Jesus' instuction in the second sending forth was for similar reason (though He told them to also carry other things, unlike the Essenes). Jesus was telling them that their travels would be "among wolves" from then on and to be realistic and prepared. This meant having a sword for defense. I don't think His instruction was solely related to the incident at His arrest.

I agree that the sword carrying wasn't only to end at Jesus's arrest, but this is the first account where they are told to aquire them by the Saviour. The apostle was scolded for brandishing the wepon without due reason, to show how one is go about assesing the situation. Thereby showing the need to defend ones self from those who may have devious intentions.
I would like to read some more about these Essenes, if Jesus was indeed influenced by them. Do you have a link?

 

[porcupine]

I agree that the sword carrying wasn't only to end at Jesus's arrest, but this is the first account where they are told to aquire them by the Saviour. The apostle was scolded for brandishing the wepon without due reason, to show how one is go about assesing the situation. Thereby showing the need to defend ones self from those who may have devious intentions.
I would like to read some more about these Essenes, if Jesus was indeed influenced by them. Do you have a link?

I also beleive that Jesus only rebuked that particular use of the sword, rather than sword-use in general. It is obvious that peter was just being Peter -- that is, getting in the way of Jesus going to the cross again. The live by the sword, die by the sword statement was more like, In this instance, with this whole armed group, if you use a sword, you will die by the sword. I don't think Jesus was making a statement of generat truth.

The article I spoke of on the Essenes was in the Jan/Feb 2004 issue of Biblical Acheology Review. Their website is new and doesn't carry the article (www.biblicalarcheology.org), but the search there under Essenes might be helpful to you. The portion of Josephus where the comment above was is in The Jewish Wars, 2.8.2-4.7.

As far as the Essenes are concerned, I din't think Jesus was "influenced" by them because He is God. He wrote the book. In some areas, their teashing was similar to that of Jesus because they took the Word of God more seriously than other Jews. That being so, they would natrurally come closer to what Jesus taught than others did. Often, the new agers and hippies see the Essenes as some kind of early version of themselves, but if they understood the rigors of that life they would back off in a hurry. They eschewed pleasures of all kinds -- some to the point of enforced celebacy -- and lived in deliberate poverty. The carrying of arms almost seems a contrast, but it made sense to them -- and wouldn't to the hippie-types.

 

[christianbeginning]

Off Topic:
The Essenes were a subset of the Pharisees, which sometimes, their similarities to Jesus is used as indirect proof that Jesus was a Pharisee himself.

 

[aanjt]

Under what conditions (if any) is a believer biblically justified in using force (up to and including deadly force) against another human being? Please cite scripture for conclusions.

What are your thoughts on this? It's only fair.

Yours in Christ,
Jen

 

[porcupine]

What are your thoughts on this? It's only fair.

Yours in Christ,
Jen

I used to tell my kids: "'Fair' is in the dictionary between 'fable' and 'fiction.'" (grin)

I was trying to be a bit Socratic by asking a lot of questions because it helps me to get unvarnished responses to help me sharpen, alter, change, or correct what I believe. I find whan I lay all my cards on the table it results in people either arguing for or against the position stated in such a way that it bypasses most of what is helpful. With that in mind, let me lay a couple of cards out:

1. I am not a pacifist, nor do I (at the moment) beleive such a position can be biblically maintained.

2. I beleive that God authorizes human govenment to use force, under limited conditions, for war, and in corporal and capital punishment.

3. I believe that God authorizes individuals, under limited conditions, to defend their own persons and the persons of others with force.

Is that a start?

 

[aanjt]

I used to tell my kids: "'Fair' is in the dictionary between 'fable' and 'fiction.'" (grin)

I was trying to be a bit Socratic by asking a lot of questions because it helps me to get unvarnished responses to help me sharpen, alter, change, or correct what I believe. I find whan I lay all my cards on the table it results in people either arguing for or against the position stated in such a way that it bypasses most of what is helpful. With that in mind, let me lay a couple of cards out:

1. I am not a pacifist, nor do I (at the moment) beleive such a position can be biblically maintained.

2. I beleive that God authorizes human govenment to use force, under limited conditions, for war, and in corporal and capital punishment.

3. I believe that God authorizes individuals, under limited conditions, to defend their own persons and the persons of others with force.

Is that a start?

It's a start, but you said that those who answered the question needed to cite biblical verses to support what they say. You haven't cited any. See, I know how I feel. Is there anything supporting that with what Jesus taught? No. There is nothing that Jesus said to support that if someone held a gun to my child's head (or knife, whatever) and said they would kill them, that if I had the chance, I would kill that person to save the life of my child. Did Jesus say to kill others if they threaten your family? No. The thing is, the only thing that is remotely supported is by anyone who says to always turn the other cheek under any circumstances. Except, when Jesus said that, he wasn't saying to be a doormat, which is what most people, in my experience, tend to make it mean.

Yours in Christ,
Jen

 

[danielb]

RE: porcupine

Do you mean civilians or are you including the likes of the Police and Military in that question?

DanielB

 

[porcupine]

It's a start, but you said that those who answered the question needed to cite biblical verses to support what they say. You haven't cited any. See, I know how I feel. Is there anything supporting that with what Jesus taught? No. There is nothing that Jesus said to support that if someone held a gun to my child's head (or knife, whatever) and said they would kill them, that if I had the chance, I would kill that person to save the life of my child. Did Jesus say to kill others if they threaten your family? No. The thing is, the only thing that is remotely supported is by anyone who says to always turn the other cheek under any circumstances. Except, when Jesus said that, he wasn't saying to be a doormat, which is what most people, in my experience, tend to make it mean.

Yours in Christ,
Jen

You are right about forgetting to quote the verses. The problem we will have here is that I believe that the OT is valid to demonstrate proper doctrine. As the Word says:

2 Timothy 3:16-17
16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:
17 That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works.

Remember that the only "Scripture" at the time this was written was the OT. I look to the times that God commanded wars and capital punishment as evidence that those are valid works of government. Genesis 9: 6 tells us that those who murder are to be executed "by man." Romans 13: 4 tells us that the government is "God's minister to revenge evil" and that it does not bear the "makira" (executioner's sword) in vain.

I look to Exodus 22: 2 showing a person killing a thief breaking into his home as not guilty of murder as evidence that a person may defend himself or his family. I look at Moses killing the Egyptian in defense of a fellow Israelite (Exodus 2: 11) as evidence of the justification of defense of others -- remembering the God did not chide Moses, but spoke favorably of the event twice in the NT (Acts 7:23-25 and Hebrews 11: 24-27).

I look at Jesus deliberately braiding a whip and using it on the moneychangers as evidence that Jesus was not a pacifist (John 2 14-17). I look at the deaths of Ananias and Saphirra as evidence that God Himself is not a pacifist -- not even in the NT (Acts 5: 1-11).

 

[porcupine]

RE: porcupine

Do you mean civilians or are you including the likes of the Police and Military in that question?

DanielB

I am looking for the parameters for any believer, civilian or otherwise. I realize that the military and police have different parameters than civilians, but what are the differences and why?

 

[aanjt]

You are right about forgetting to quote the verses. The problem we will have here is that I believe that the OT is valid to demonstrate proper doctrine. As the Word says:

2 Timothy 3:16-17
16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:
17 That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works.

Remember that the only "Scripture" at the time this was written was the OT. I look to the times that God commanded wars and capital punishment as evidence that those are valid works of government. Genesis 9: 6 tells us that those who murder are to be executed "by man." Romans 13: 4 tells us that the government is "God's minister to revenge evil" and that it does not bear the "makira" (executioner's sword) in vain.

I look to Exodus 22: 2 showing a person killing a thief breaking into his home as not guilty of murder as evidence that a person may defend himself or his family. I look at Moses killing the Egyptian in defense of a fellow Israelite (Exodus 2: 11) as evidence of the justification of defense of others -- remembering the God did not chide Moses, but spoke favorably of the event twice in the NT (Acts 7:23-25 and Hebrews 11: 24-27).

I look at Jesus deliberately braiding a whip and using it on the moneychangers as evidence that Jesus was not a pacifist (John 2 14-17). I look at the deaths of Ananias and Saphirra as evidence that God Himself is not a pacifist -- not even in the NT (Acts 5: 1-11).

You are right, the only Scripture there was back in Jesus' time was the OT. But the NT is in our canon, so we as well use that. I know that Jesus used the whip at the temple, but that was not in self defense. In fact, when the time came for him to use self-defense, he did not use it. I would hardly call Jesus a pacifist, he did, to put it one way, rebel against authorities and question the laws when probably most would not have.

Yours in Christ,
Jen

 

[porcupine]

You are right, the only Scripture there was back in Jesus' time was the OT. But the NT is in our canon, so we as well use that. I know that Jesus used the whip at the temple, but that was not in self defense. In fact, when the time came for him to use self-defense, he did not use it. I would hardly call Jesus a pacifist, he did, to put it one way, rebel against authorities and question the laws when probably most would not have.

Yours in Christ,
Jen

You are correct. The whip at the Temple was not self-defense. It was -- I think -- defense of others, namely His Father and His Father's house. When it came time for self-defense, Jesus "opened not His mouth." This was because His mission was to go to the cross for our sins. However, Paul did not ask WWJD when he stood trial on a couple of occasions. In fact, he defended himself very ably (here speaking of courtroom defense, rather than self-defense in the physical sense). The reason I bring this up is that we are not commanded to do everything as Jesus did it when H e was here on earth. In fact, Jesus will get quite physically violent in Revelation 19.

 

[openeyes]

I also beleive that Jesus only rebuked that particular use of the sword, rather than sword-use in general. It is obvious that peter was just being Peter -- that is, getting in the way of Jesus going to the cross again. The live by the sword, die by the sword statement was more like, In this instance, with this whole armed group, if you use a sword, you will die by the sword. I don't think Jesus was making a statement of generat truth.

The article I spoke of on the Essenes was in the Jan/Feb 2004 issue of Biblical Acheology Review. Their website is new and doesn't carry the article (www.biblicalarcheology.org), but the search there under Essenes might be helpful to you. The portion of Josephus where the comment above was is in The Jewish Wars, 2.8.2-4.7.

As far as the Essenes are concerned, I din't think Jesus was "influenced" by them because He is God. He wrote the book. In some areas, their teashing was similar to that of Jesus because they took the Word of God more seriously than other Jews. That being so, they would natrurally come closer to what Jesus taught than others did. Often, the new agers and hippies see the Essenes as some kind of early version of themselves, but if they understood the rigors of that life they would back off in a hurry. They eschewed pleasures of all kinds -- some to the point of enforced celebacy -- and lived in deliberate poverty. The carrying of arms almost seems a contrast, but it made sense to them -- and wouldn't to the hippie-types.

Maybe he wasn't influenced by them directly, but He possibly used their tone and/or manner to catch the ears of those He was attepmting to minister to. That to me is important, if you can catch someones attention then something may catch on.
Sorry off topic
God bless

 

[xtxArchxAngelxtx]

every war ends up in peace, one way or another.


The throne for heaven will be/is at war against satan. Force is needed when ignorance is used in defense, cause you talk, negociate or reason when you're tralking to a wall, so you ogtta break through it... and arguing or reasoning witha nd idiot or ignorant fool is like talking to a wall... thats all I gotta say.