oh valiant warrior
During the past few months I’ve been mulling over the various arguments regarding Christian pacifism, and there’s one argument I’m exploring that I feel needs serious consideration.
1st Samuel 16:18 says, “Behold, I have seen a son of Jesse the Bethlehemite who is a skillful musician, a mighty man of valor, a warrior, one prudent in speech, and a handsome man; and the LORD is with him.”
Got hates sin. It is impossible that God could esteem sin, and yet, God esteems warriors. The only conclusion that makes any sense is that being a warrior is not in itself sinful, otherwise God could not esteem it.
In the Old Testament, strength in combat was considered a praiseworthy attribute, and God placed honour upon those that were skillful in battle. We read of David that his valor and military skill were not simply commendable, but were also parallel and coincident with the presence of God in his life.
Now, what this means for Christians today is not immediately clear, though one thing is certain: God esteems that valiant warrior.
August 23rd, 2008 at 7:18 pm
It’s worth noting that King David also committed adultery, and murdered the man whose wife he stole. Can God esteem that too? The idea that God’s approval of David meant that David’s attributes were all great is fallacious.
August 24th, 2008 at 5:45 pm
Yes, David was a sinner like any of us. What you need to remember here is context. The descriptors in the passage I cited appear together, as a cluster. Why? For one simple reason: they’re directly related to each other.
I’m not suggesting that because God shows favour at one point, that it means everything that person does is justified and honorable. Give me more credit than that!
August 25th, 2008 at 9:02 am
I’m going to play devil’s advocate on this one. I do not believe in Christian pacifism. But if we want to simply use singular verses as a justification for a position how do you reconcile…
1 Chron 28:3
“But God said to me, You shall not build a house for My name because you are a man of war and have shed blood.”
August 25th, 2008 at 3:00 pm
Well, I’m not sure where the thought came from that singular verses couldn’t teach us. It’s easy to take verses out of context, but of course some verses include context.
In the beginning, God made the Heavens and the Earth.
For God so loved the world…
This verse outlines some of the attributes that were admirable about David, and connects them to God’s presence in his life.
Of course we should look to the rest of the Scriptures to see if we can’t find anything that might enhance or speak into what this one verse tells us.
Being that God made it mandatory for men of a certain age to join the military; being that one of the Patriarchs wrestled for a blessing; being that Christ whipped the money changers and that He Himself is called a Warrior (with blood staining His garments no less), I think the Scriptures adequately support my thesis that being a warrior is not inherently sinful.
I chose the verse I did, not because it explains the topic completely, but because it is an interesting jumping off point.
August 25th, 2008 at 3:17 pm
Also, the verse from 1 Chron you cited is interesting.
If God calls you out to war, then says because you went to war you can’t build a home for Him, the conclusion can’t be “going to war is sin.” It’s more intricate than that. I think God has reasons we can’t always tap in to. God values consecration, and the tool He uses to spill blood with is different than the one He uses to build with.
You have a wrench. You have a saw. You have a hammer. Each has their use. How much deeper is God’s view of us as parts of the body.
August 26th, 2008 at 9:58 am
My point was that a singular verse may not be enough to support a view, especially when other singular verses can be used to contradict or argue against yours.
In addition, most proponents of Christian pacifism will be undetered by arguments inspired by the old testament. IE the whole physical world to spiritual world transition.
I think it would be necessary to use passages from both Christ and Paul and if you happen to have a scholar mixed in there, that would be good.
Again, I support what you’re going for, but if you wanted to argue with say, Fulford, you’re going to have to do better than that.
August 26th, 2008 at 10:26 am
Haha. This post wasn’t meant to be an exhaustive proof against pacifism! It’s just a point I thought was interesting and important that has its place in the discussion.
Arguments from the Old Testament matter if they reveal something about God’s unchanging character.
Actually, as far as Andrew was concerned, the big issue for him is reconciling the command to love our enemies with killing them. He doesn’t feel that the two are compatible; I believe they are, and I don’t believe it’s hard to demonstrate, but that’s not what I’m writing about here.
If someone accepts pacifism because they feel the act of going to war is in in itself wrong, the argument I’ve made here should give them something to think about; how could something be wrong that God esteems?
Again, you’re criticizing this argument because it’s not all things to all men. It’s not supposed to be. It’s but one small part.
August 26th, 2008 at 12:13 pm
interesting post.
glad i ran into your blog ben.
i think that we need to becareful when reading the OT, especially regarding the bloody wars that Israelites have been involved in.
we need to remember that before Jesus came, the Israelites were to be the light and the salt of the earth. Nation that was to lead the way to God for other nations, therefore IMO, God was with the Israelites and David as they conquered other nations around them to show God’s glory and strength.
However, that did not work. David still screwed up and the Israelites were spoiled and abandoned God and started worshipping idols… as a result, God destroyed the temple and sent Israel into exile.
As a final attempt (after the flood, babel, choosing Abraham to make a nation of God, exodus)… God had sent His son to die so that we may gain salvation through him.
Jesus could’ve easily destroyed Rome and Ceasar and established himself as the Lord of the earth and become the ‘valiant warrior’. Instead, he willingly laid down his life for God, for us, even for his enemies….
as followers of Christ, we need to do the same, willing to lay down our lives for God, for one another, even for our enemies… i believe that’s the true meaning of ‘love your enemies’…
To take ones life in the name of our God is completely contradicting what Christ had died for… i think that as Christians, we need to carefully read the OT scriptures in the light of our NT scriptures… and consider where we’re at in the point of history… cause we’re not living in the OT times anymore… Israelites are not God’s chosen people to shine the light unto this world anymore, we as Christians are… and we need to pick up the cross and follow Jesus’ path even to the point of death… even if it means dying for our enemies…
(this stuff is hard to say cause i myself can’t even come close to doing this… but i am against going to a war b/c we have no right to take a life that has been given from God.)
i guess this too is something to think about as well…
James
August 26th, 2008 at 1:12 pm
Hi James. Welcome!
You raise some good points. A few responses:
1) The OT contains varied information; history, poetry, covenantal expectations, etc. One thing we need to do when working with the OT is determine whether the passage in question at all informs us about something that is relevant or eternal (this matters in particular when it comes to God and His attributes). So, for example, though we are free from the law, the law still teaches us something about what’s important to God. We get a glimpse of who God is by studying how He chose to relate to us, even in the context of an extinguished covenant.
So, we can’t simply dismiss something because it is found in the OT; we need to determine what relevance there may or may not be.
2) I think it’s easy to confuse some parts of Christ’s ministry with others, or to position Christ’s ministry as being at odds with the OT. This all requires a delicate hand. For example, you said:
Christ died out of obedience to the Father; the Father required Christ’s death so that He could propitiate for the sins of mankind. This, however, does not explicitly mean the act of taking a life is wrong – one does not imply the other.
We do know that certain kinds of killing are sin, and the conclusion in these cases would be clear. However, we have accounts where God commands the taking of a life. This would seem to fall into a different category, lest God be an author of sin.
We cannot simply view “killing” as sin carte blanche, without dealing with instances where doing so would result in a total collapse of of our belief system (ex., God being an author of sin).
3) You mention shining God’s light; why is it unacceptable that Christians should shine God’s light by participating in campaigns to end tyranny, injustice, or genocide? We can’t just transpose Christ’s example or the examples of the Apostles on to, say, Brittons in WW2. More finessing needs to be done as the non-violence of Christ (though He did have more than one episode of violence that we know about) has specific, salvific underpinnings.
4) Just as God used Israel to being judgment to its godless neighbours, so too did God raise up those same neighboring armies at different time to bring death upon a rebellious Israel. This would suggest that God’s use of earthly armies to execute His judgements is not restricted to covenant relationships. We know that in Rom 13, God continues to execute judgements through the State in this day and age. I think it’s hard to argue, “Well it was ok for Israel because they were God’s people,” when God raises up people, even now, for the same purpose.
August 26th, 2008 at 4:46 pm
Colossians 1:19-20.
19For in him [Christ] all the fullness of God was pleased to dwell, 20and through him to reconcile to himself all things, whether on earth or in heaven, making peace by the blood of his cross.
Romans 5:18-19
18Then as one man’s trespass led to condemnation for all men, so one man’s act of righteousness leads to acquittal and life for all men. 19For as by one man’s disobedience many were made sinners, so by one man’s obedience many will be made righteous.
I whole heartly agree with you when you say,
“Christ died out of obedience to the Father; the Father required Christ’s death so that He could propitiate for the sins of mankind.”
God had forgiven our sins through Christ’s blood in order to give us LIFE instead of death.
In my opion, i believe that Jesus too was a pacifist, who dared not to take ones life, not even the ones of his enemies. Jesus healed whoever came to him, doesn’t matter who they were (adulterers, murderers, pagans or followers) because they had faith and they believed in Jesus. Christ never refused to heal nor drive out demons in people. He simply accepted everyone who came to him.
when you see the result of God’s covenant through the Israelites vs. God’s covenant through Jesus… you can see why the ‘old’ way has lost its way and the ‘new’ has come to stay.
As i mentioned before, God had demonstrated His glory through the Israelites by giving them victories over the unbelieving nations around them, hence making Israel one of the greatest nations in the region. However, the victories and the glory had gone to the people’s heads, hence leading them down on a path to idolatry and destruction. You gotta remember that the kings to come after David had progressively become corrupt and Godless, and the latter half of the OT is God promising to punish Israel for its sins and eventually putting them into exile…
I believe that, that was the result of the violent approach to redeem mankind, and it just did not work.
you mention tyranny, injustice and genocide… those are all horrible things… and yes if it wasn’t for the allies, WWII could have not been over.
however, even after the war, has the killing stopped? has tyranny stopped? injustice? and genocide?
who are the bad guys? though Britain had fought against the Nazis, their exploitation on Africa and India continued on.
and the states? killing in the name of God yet exploiting 3rd world countries w/ corporations and armies…
according to Romans 13:10.
10 Love does no harm to its neighbor. Therefore love is the fulfillment of the law.
i think that pretty much sums up what fulfills the law.
another response to the injustice going on around the world…
Ro 12:19
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.
I think that it is not our job to punish for people for their wrong doing, but we need to allow room for God’s wrath…
this too is very hard to say b/c in our nature, we want to protect and fight against the obvious evil that’s happening around the world… but we’re called to love our enemies instead of kill them. We’re call to turn the other cheek instead of strike them back…
this is all backwards in our common sense… but that is the very teachings of Jesus and we need to obey, just as he did.
Jesus along w/ the disciples laid their very lives for the gospel, fighting against the system that still exist now. It is easy to fight back, it’s easy to take vengeance into our own hands… however it is SO hard not to hit back, it is so much harder not to take revenge… and we’re called to walk on the narrow path of via dolorosa.
besides… i believe that we turn to violence due to our fear. Fear of our ways of life being threatened and fear of us dying…
God calls us not to fear… b/c even the world and all that’s in it will pass away, He will make all things new and dry all our tears. Why should we fear death and suffering when Christ has conquered death and sin? That God will resurrect us and we get to spend eternity w/ our Creator?
(once again, very hard things to say since i cannot even come close to living this out… but then again Jesus says ‘What is impossible with men is possible with God’)
James Lee
August 26th, 2008 at 9:23 pm
Christ came to give us eternal life. If anything, for the Early Church, declaring your salvation meant certain physical death! Since Christ’s not a liar, we have to conclude when He promises life, He’s not making a promise regarding life in the body. He brought us eternal life and an eventual end of death – but we are still living in a cursed era.
Christ was not a pacifist – He whipped the money changers, not once, but twice. And the next time He’s coming back, it’s for blood (so to speak).
And we follow His example. When someone asks forgiveness, or turns a corner and realizes they need Christ, we drop what we’re doing and extend grace. I’m not talking about extending grace.
For us to talk about pacifism, we have to get clear what we have in view. When the police take down a pedophile, is it wrong? When someone breaks into your house, antagonizes your family, and you subdue them with force, is that wrong?
Pacifism doesn’t just mean “killing.” For many, it also means, “using force.” There are gradations, and we need to define our terms – what’s the extent of your belief?
This can be said of any kind of abundance: having a lot of money can go to one’s head. Being praised for being a gifted preacher can go to one’s head. Being asked to sit in on worship teams can go to one’s head. These are all good things, but can have ill effects if the recipient of these blessings is not in lockstep with God. The potential for arrogance, idolatry, and wavering is not an argument that the vehicle for that wavering is wrong.
Yes, it’s despicable. No argument there.
It’s interesting you cite Rom 12, as one chapter over, Paul reminds us that the State wields the sword (no, not the “Bible,” but force) and that they do not do so in vain (meaning, they do so purposefully and rightly).
There is a difference between what you can do as an individual, and what you can participate in as a citizen doing your duty.
This is why God can command, “Thou shalt not kill,” and weeks later command, “Kill everything; the women and the children.” As I’ve said elsewhere, we can make a very strong argument for individual rights vs state rights.
You very well cannot pull someone over for speeding or slap cuffs on a drunk; a police officer can. Common sense tells us that individuals are not privy to some of the same privileges that state-servants are; the Scriptures teach us this as well.
Again, in my personal life, I seek to love my enemies. Faced with an intruder who threatens the safety of my family or the invasion of a genocidal force, I’ll pick up a gun and join my countrymen, and will be justified in doing so given the differences in circumstances and each entails.
We are told that he who does not provide for his family is a reprobate; this includes safety. If Christ was sleeping over, and thugs broke in, the Man I read of in the Scriptures would not retreat to a closet and try to pray the bad men away… if He felt compelled to drive some greedy opportunists out of the temple, surely He’d lift a finger to see my wife and kids not fall upon any undue harm, no?
In this scenario, what kind of Lord do you picture?
Again, I do not disagree James. There’s a lot to consider though. The major points to the argument as I see them are as follows:
- God esteems valiant warriors; since God cannot esteem sin, what He does esteem cannot be inherently sinful
- God has at times commanded His people go to war; since God cannot be the author of sin, what He commands His people to do cannot be inherently sinful
- God establishes government and sees that it uses force; since God cannot establish anything sinful, force cannot be inherently sinful
- Christ drove money changers from the temple; since Christ can commit no sin, using force to preserve what is consecrated cannot be inherently sinful
- Christ is described as a warrior; since God cannot be anything sinful, being a warrior cannot be inherently sinful
Of course there are counter arguments to these points (namely, covenantal shift and Christ’s amendments to the Law), but regardless these are some of the major tenets of Christian non-pacifism.
August 27th, 2008 at 10:02 am
ben,
you make some interesting points against my thoughts on violence and war… but once again, i strongly believe that we need to use those scriptures in reflection of the entire bible instead of using Jesus’ acts towards the merchants in the temple.
John 2:
14 In the temple courts he found men selling cattle, sheep and doves, and others sitting at tables exchanging money. 15 So he made a whip out of cords, and drove all from the temple area, both sheep and cattle; he scattered the coins of the money changers and overturned their tables
once again, these two verses can mean many things in terms of Jesus’ actions… did he actually whip the people and physically harm them? or did he scare them off?
you know, we are called to love the sinner and hate the sin… i believe this is what Jesus was demonstrating. By driving people and animals out of the temple, Jesus was acting ‘violent’ towards the greed and hypocrisy going on inside God’s temple. Instead of striking them dead, Jesus simply drove them out in anger.
Also, there are many many instances Jesus opposed violence and killing… ‘those to live by the sword, shall die by the sword’…
violence approach to any situation will result in more violence instead of a resolution… OT is a prime example of that… i keep saying that God’s approach to redeeming the world through violence did not work… 1st He wiped the earth w/ rain killing everything except those in the ark, then He drove out nations using Israel killing everything in their way as well. That obviously did not work, and eventually Israel turned their ways against God. The ONLY approach that worked was through the non-violent approach Jesus had made by simply laying his life down for us WHILE we’re still sinners. Some people repented for their sins… but many didn’t, yet while we’re still sinners, Jesus simply laid down his life…
it’s interesting you say
“And we follow His example. When someone asks forgiveness, or turns a corner and realizes they need Christ, we drop what we’re doing and extend grace.”
In John 8, Jesus defends a woman who had committed adultery. With the OT logic, the woman should be stoned… but instead Jesus says “If any one of you is without sin, let him be the first to throw a stone at her.”
the woman never asked Jesus for forgiveness… yet his grace was already extended to her before she could even repent. I believe that’s the example we’re suppose to follow…
i think that we should think twice about our sinful lives before we can pick up a stone and throw at another person.
you mention someone intruding and threatening your family… but what if, the very country you’re living in and are willing to die for is doing that exact act in another country. I bet you, the person on the other side is thinking the exact same thing.
There will always be 2 sides of the story and both sides trying to justify their right to kill and punish. Why can’t we allow our all knowing God to be the judge and to have the last word instead of our guns do the talking.
i never said it is wrong to arrest pedophiles and people who impose harm on others. It is only wrong when the authority tortures the criminals and embody punishment in a very destructive manner.
i believe in excommunication… and i believe that is done to restore and reconcile with the person instead of driving them out of society.
i guess i should’ve been more clear, i’m not a pacifist, but i am a follower of Jesus… and many of his acts involved non-violence… and he was actively forgiving and loving. if someone breaks into my house and threatens my families lives… i would probably do everything in my power to protect my family… but i pray and hope that, there could be another solution… maybe when we depend on God instead of our own ‘common sense’, He too can perform miracles in our lives…
maybe instead of taking down the gunman, stepping in front of him would save another person’s life… or maybe not… but it did work for a friend of mine… and the craziest thing of all was that he too was willing to lay down his own life for another person just as Jesus did…
August 27th, 2008 at 11:36 am
This is a conundrum… one of the mysteries of the faith. This quote is actually from Ghandi, and is not found in the Scriptures. The Scriptures teach two truths:
- God loves sinners
- God hates sinners
While we were yet sinners, God loved us. But His wrath still burns toward the wicked; both sin and those who sin.
Christ fashioned a whip, and drove people out… the only way this makes sense – the only way people would flee from their money and their valuable goods – was if Christ was in fact a physical threat; that is, if He was actually inflicting punishment on people. I don’t think we gather from the passage that Jesus just kinda cracked a whip and hoped people would leave. He drove them out. This is non a pacifist act. No, this passage does not justify killing; the simple point is that force is, circumstance pending, justifiable.
Now, you rightly say that what motivated Christ was the sin taking place. What this means then is that certain sins can merit a physical response.
Again, yeah. I think God has an ideal and a high standard He calls us to, in general. Martyrdom stains the Early Church; clearly choosing to take the bullet is sometimes noble – sometimes it is not. Standing by as a child is abducted by a sex-slave trader is abhorrent; throwing some punches and trying to protect a victim reveals the heart of God.
We throw around Christian-ese like, “God will provide a way… God will work a miracle.” But how do you know that your being there is not the miracle! The God knew, and arranged it so that you would be there to offer assistance to someone who would need it? Who can know?
So do I… most of the time. Everything has it’s season. Grace should be the rule of our lives. But Rom 13 teaches that God is pleased, even in this day and age, to lift up earthly forces to execute His judgements.
For example, parents are called to love their children, and not to exasperate them. But parents – good parents – also chastise their children and administer punishment when necessary. Punishment and love do not exclude each other. In a similar way, God uses the forces of Earth to execute punishment. Why would He not be pleased that His children participate in His works?
I know for a fact you would intervene! What would be the motivation? Anger – perhaps (and this is ok; anger is not sin in and of itself either). Love? Yes; love for your family. Let’s not forget that we are called to love, and sometimes love for one person necessitates that someone else be treated in a seemingly unloving way. We have preconceptions of what love must look like. For example, lest you hate your mother and father, you cannot follow after God; love for God can look like hate toward others… it’s not always clear or obvious how love will manifest itself.
August 27th, 2008 at 12:09 pm
I’ve been following the discussion and can appreciate the points being made in both directions. Forgive me for butting in, but a couple verses came to mind as I read:
Matthew 26
50Then the men stepped forward, seized Jesus and arrested him. 51With that, one of Jesus’ companions reached for his sword, drew it out and struck the servant of the high priest, cutting off his ear.
52″Put your sword back in its place,” Jesus said to him, “for all who draw the sword will die by the sword. 53Do you think I cannot call on my Father, and he will at once put at my disposal more than twelve legions of angels? 54But how then would the Scriptures be fulfilled that say it must happen in this way?”
If we turn to violence and take a postion of defensiveness, what if we’re standing in the way of God’s own will?
By choosing to protect your family/friends/loved ones from harm by using force or taking another’s life, you may have prevented God from working in that situation and fulfilling His plan Himself. Often, God’s plans don’t make immediate sense to us since we can’t see the complete picture. Sometimes He requires sacrifices from us that seem unfair and that will certainly be painful. I believe we have much more to gain when we lay down our lives for God and trust Him to do the protecting and judging.
Jesus calls us, as James said above, to take the narrow path and love our enemies. Jesus’ submission was the final fulfillment of scripture.
Paul, in Ephesians 6 says
12For our struggle is not against flesh and blood, but against the rulers, against the authorities, against the powers of this dark world and against the spiritual forces of evil in the heavenly realms.
Instead of concentrating on protecting ourselves from each other and drawing our swords, let’s join together and arm ourselves with the full armour of God.
Kelly
August 27th, 2008 at 1:18 pm
Hi Kelly! Thanks for reading and commenting.
It’s interesting that we only apply this reasoning in certain circumstances. You go to work to make money to buy food, and you won’t stop to just wait and see if God compels a pizza man to show up at your door. You don’t not buy groceries, just in case God had something better in store. Instead, you do your duty, and try to be as responsible as possible; this is parallel to the life of faith, not in contrast to it.
You don’t refuse to go to the gas station so that God can miraculously fill your tank; you don’t walk outside naked having faith that God will dress you in the clothes He would have you wear that day, etc etc.
Why do we apply different criteria to providing safety and protection? God calls us to wisdom just as much as He calls us to faith and surrender.
Also, the sword that disciple drew could very well have been the same sword Christ commanded him to carry but a few verses earlier…
Great verse. Yes, our struggle is against the spiritual; this is a matter of focus. The thing that we are constantly working against, fighting against, and striving against, is the Spiritual. But this passage does not say, “Don’t strive against anything physical,” it is simply framing that which should take up the majority of our focus and attention.
When’s the last time your computer went haywire or you blew a tire on the highway? Did you struggle with these physical difficulties? Yes. Why? Because we are body and spirit, and in this life, we will have to contend with physical issues. In all things, our focus is to be on His Kingdom, but this truth is not at odds with another; that physical events and tragedies will also require our attention in the here and now.
August 27th, 2008 at 3:29 pm
Good points, you’re right in the sense that we don’t (I don’t) put trust in God in all circumstances like providing food and clothing. But this isn’t proof that we shouldn’t.
Dependence on God for all things is common throughout the old and new testament.
Matthew 6
25″Therefore I tell you, do not worry about your life, what you will eat or drink; or about your body, what you will wear. Is not life more important than food, and the body more important than clothes?”
In Exodus the Israelites are completely and literally dependent on God for direction and food as they travel through the desert.
Matthew 3 (regarding John the Baptist)
4John’s clothes were made of camel’s hair, and he had a leather belt around his waist. His food was locusts and wild honey.
If we can’t even provide food and clothes for ourselves, how are we to provide effective protection against harm or even trust in our own wisdom in order to decide when or when not to take another person’s life?
You ask why we apply different criteria to providing safety and protection? I say let’s not. Let them all come from God. Including our wisdom.
23 King Solomon was greater in riches and wisdom than all the other kings of the earth. 24 The whole world sought audience with Solomon to hear the wisdom God had put in his heart.
Here is a beautiful passage about wisdom from Job 28 in the midst of his desperation:
12 “But where can wisdom be found?
Where does understanding dwell?
13 Man does not comprehend its worth;
it cannot be found in the land of the living.
skip ahead a little…
21 It is hidden from the eyes of every living thing,
concealed even from the birds of the air.
22 Destruction [c] and Death say,
‘Only a rumor of it has reached our ears.’
23 God understands the way to it
and he alone knows where it dwells,
24 for he views the ends of the earth
and sees everything under the heavens.
25 When he established the force of the wind
and measured out the waters,
26 when he made a decree for the rain
and a path for the thunderstorm,
27 then he looked at wisdom and appraised it;
he confirmed it and tested it.
28 And he said to man,
‘The fear of the Lord—that is wisdom,
and to shun evil is understanding.’ ”
This is how Job chose to struggle with his spiritual AND physical difficulties (which were not separate). Here is where his attention was directed entirely. If he had sought out retribution for the wrong done to him, wouldn’t his focus have been diverted and at odds with the intimate relationship with God he was seeking? Comfort didn’t lie in payback or protection, it was with God alone.
Thanks for entertaining this discussion, I’m actually learning quite a bit from it. Regardless if we ever come to the same conclusions, I’m interested to be experiencing a different perspective. It throws some of my weak spots into vivid relief which I appreciate.
August 27th, 2008 at 4:26 pm
I don’t think we have to agree! So long as Christ is King of our hearts, and we are soft to the Spirit, we’ll be taken where we need to go regarding doctrine. Thank God for that.
My only response is this: you are right. We depend on God for everything. We include Him in everything. We seek to honour and submit to Him in everything. What the Scriptures also teach, not in contradiction but as a parallel truth, is that we are supposed to be responsible, pull our own weight, and apply ourselves to those tasks which we have been made stewards of.
It is not only good, but right, that we have employment and pay bills. It is right that we plan for the future. It is right that we engage in all the activities of this planet insofar as they are not inherently sinful.
God expects us both to be and to do. Those who love Him obey His commands – faith is seen in action.
So do I rely on God for every cent I need? Yes. Does the very strength and ability I have come from Him? Yes. Do I hang on Him for each passing breath? Yes. But it is equally true that I have, of my own volition and ability, gone out and fulfilled my responsibility by earning income.
I have done it, God has done it, and the two are the same and separate. It is not an either/or but a both/and; there is no exclusivity here.
God places us in situations so that we might serve and grow; we find ourselves where we are for a reason. As far as violence is concerned, we can take this one of two ways: God places us in a conflict to see if we will or if we will not respond. Perhaps we can extend the verse this way:
“I was hungry and you did not feed me. I was naked and you did not clothe me. I got the ?#!@ kicked out of me and you stood by and did nothing.”
We give food to the hungry. Clothes to the naked. I believe too we can lend rescue to the oppressed, and that God is pleased to use His children in this way – He was in the Old Covenant and I don’t think the New Covenant has obliterated this fact.
While all things depend on God, so as far as it depends on me, should a situation present itself that requires the fierce violence and strength of our Warrior King, I will not hedge it in.
Thanks so much for your thoughts! They’re most welcome.
August 27th, 2008 at 10:04 pm
Hi All,
Sorry for joining the discussion late, I must admit that I have not read ALL of the posts, and discussion. That being said, I will refer back to Ben’s original post.
The pacifist would argue (and as it seems james and kelly have argued) that there seems to be incongruence between that which Samuel is saying, and the words of Christ. Samuel is describing a dashing young man, who speaks well and has many things going for him. While in the sermon on the mount, Jesus describes an entirely different picture of what it is like to experience the blessings of the Lord. As we see in the beatitudes, Jesus seems to take conventional wisdom about might and power and turn it upside down.
3″Blessed are the poor in spirit,
for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.
4Blessed are those who mourn,
for they will be comforted.
5Blessed are the meek,
for they will inherit the earth.
6Blessed are those who hunger and thirst for righteousness,
for they will be filled.
7Blessed are the merciful,
for they will be shown mercy.
8Blessed are the pure in heart,
for they will see God.
9Blessed are the peacemakers,
for they will be called sons of God.
10Blessed are those who are persecuted because of righteousness,
for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.
11″Blessed are you when people insult you, persecute you and falsely say all kinds of evil against you because of me.
Samuel describes this individual’s blessing by his might. The pacifist would argue that Jesus positions blessing as the abandonment of might, no?
August 28th, 2008 at 9:23 am
Peter, thanks for your thoughts!
Again, I think a distinction can be made between what our response is to be when we are being persecuted (especially because of the faith) vs what our response is when others are being persecuted.
The focus of the passage you cited, insofar as it relates to violence, is what our response is to be when we are being mistreated. I believe it is an altogether different thing when we witness persecution, and have means with which to administer God’s grace to the victim.
Again, Christ commanded that His disciples carry sword; Christ used force to preserve the sanctity of the temple; Christ said that violent men take the kingdom by force*. Violence has a place that is parallel to meekness; I do not think the two are always in conflict with each other. Neither do I think loving an enemy and punishing him contradict.
*Matt 11:12 has two possible interpretations; either that the Pharisees are seeking to violently tear-away at God’s kingdom, or that people get into the kingdom by almost “violent” vigor and persistence. I think both are valid.
August 28th, 2008 at 10:37 am
to be honest…
i see no difference between our response to when we’re being persecuted because our faith vs. when others are being persecuted.
Jesus saw his people being persecuted b/c of their faith… yet he did not raise his arm against the oppressors, yet he was persecuted along w/ his people…i think that should be our response as witnesses of the persecution.
one thing i like to mention is who is our mediator?
in the OT it was moses, joshua, the judges, David and the righteous kings and the prophets…
God spoke to Israel through the mediator during the time… specifically ordering them to carry out His commands ie. kill the nations around them (b/c they had defiled themselves by worshiping idols, Lev. 18:21), and also to worship Him w/ everything they had.
But when Jesus came, died and was ressurected… he now is the ONLY way to God. Which God has appointed him not only our mediator but also our Lord. As we focus on this… we follow Christ teachings and his examples… which is to turn the other cheek and to love our enemies…
we’re under a new covenant… and Jesus commands us to love… he calls us to be poor, to be meek, to thirst for righteousness and to be peace makers…
if Jesus justified violence, then i will justify it. But he never taught us to raise our arms against one another… but to forgive one another. This does not mean that we allow this world to do whatever it pleases, but to fight against evil w/ good. ‘Do not be overcome by evil, but overcome evil with good’ (Romans 12:21)
what kind of sword are we to carry? (i believe it’s the one that is sharper than the “double edged sword”) what kind of force are we to use to take back or establish the kingdom? (i believe it’s the force that is “good”, that comes from God)
as i mentioned before, i do believe in punishment and excommunication… but it needs to be done in the light for the person to be reconciled… but to bring an end to the oppressors and tyrants w/ a violent force will only contribute to the never ending circle of violence…
i think that Paul sums it up pretty well in terms of how things ought to be carried out and will be done in terms of war, violence, and punishment.
2 Corinthians 10:1-6
” By the meekness and gentleness of Christ, I appeal to you—I, Paul, who am “timid” when face to face with you, but “bold” when away! I beg you that when I come I may not have to be as bold as I expect to be toward some people who think that we live by the standards of this world. For though we live in the world, we do not wage war as the world does. The weapons we fight with are not the weapons of the world. On the contrary, they have divine power to demolish strongholds. We demolish arguments and every pretension that sets itself up against the knowledge of God, and we take captive every thought to make it obedient to Christ. And we will be ready to punish every act of disobedience, once your obedience is complete. “
August 28th, 2008 at 11:42 am
There’s a world of difference. I mean, Christ was silent when being accused, and sent the adulteress’s persecutors away… no, He didn’t use violence, but that’s irrelevant; His response was different in each scenario. What we do for ourselves and what we do for others, is different. That’s a major them of the Gospels (we are not to be served, but to serve). This applies to donating money and giving clothing, as much as it does laying down your life for your family, should that opportunity arise.
I’m finding it hard to believe that standing by as the people you are responsible for and accountable to God for are violated, is in any way exemplifying the heart of God.
“Yeah. Beat the crap out of my kid and wife. I’m taking the higher road.” Where is Christ in that? This does not fit into all of Scripture, though it might jive with the odd passage about being meek. We need understand context when dealing with the passages you’re citing.
Yes, Christ suffered as His people suffered, but to say because, “Jesus didn’t liberate the Jews from Roman persecution, so we can’t engage in any kind of violence,” is an argument from silence. Political liberation was not part of Christ’s mandate, or God’s will for Israel at that time. Jesus had a mission and some particular things to teach; this does not preclude us from participating in activities that He did not participate in. Christ didn’t get married, have kids or have a home for that matter; that doesn’t mean we can’t have these things and more. We need to view Christ’s life and message through His mandate, and balance all this with the rest of the NT, and the entire legacy of God’s movement among His people. WWJD can be a flawed modus operandi.
I agree.
Actions speak louder than words. Christ was violent. That would seem to be a kind of justification, no?
This is begging the question; the assumption being made here is that all violence is actually, in every situation, bad. If this is true, then Christ’s clearing of the temple is sin – is this a conclusion you’re comfortable with?
Exactly. We do not build God’s kingdom with force. This is clear. The focus of our struggle is against unseen powers, absolutely.
Again, this is all a matter of context. I do not believe this passage is not speaking about “general behaviour,” but is speaking about the primary battle with which we are to concern ourselves – the Spiritual. We do not build God’s kingdom with physical violence. But I’ll restate: this passage does not preclude the use of force where a physical struggle may arise.
It’s just common sense: you use spiritual weapons against a spiritual enemy; use physical ones against a physical enemy. We have the great advantage that we can also use spiritual weapons against a physical enemy, thank God for that. Our goal is to be meek and restrained, but this does not preclude force in 100% of all possible situations. I’m arguing that there is compatiblism here, not exclusion.
August 28th, 2008 at 1:54 pm
ben,
i see a pattern here,
i appreciate the way you break down my response to throuly reply to my comments… but there’s also a danger in that,
which is misunderstanding.. therefore instead of looking at things by sentence by sentence, or paragraph by paragraph, we need to reflect upon the whole body of the writing in order to understand the point. i believe that this is the greatest mistake we all do as we read the bible.
with that being said, let me be more clear in regards to our response being the same way as us being persecuted vs. others.
i did not mean that when we see someone we love being persecuted, we sit there and do nothing.. by no means… but as i mentioned in the previous comment in regards to Jesus’ example of being persecuted along side of us, we need to follow his footsteps in regards to stepping in the situations and offer ourselves to be sacrificed for the ones we love just as Jesus did…
it can look more like the example i have used in the previous comment (in regards to my friend stepping in front of a gunman b/c his friend’s life was threatened.)
Also by using that one incident regarding Jesus and the merchants in the temple cannot justify your view of Christ as being violent.
Again, we need to look at the life of Jesus and his teachings instead of using one incident to justify our violence towards those who try to harm us. (if that continues, this discussion will go nowhere since we can keep going back and forth using only a small part of scripture to justify our means) (there are also many many verses in the NT where Jesus was NOT violent, like the time when people try to stone Jesus and all he did was running away and hiding, John 8:59)
you mention ’spiritual’ and physical nature… how do you define ’spiritual’?
in scripture… there’s no mentioning of the word ’spiritual’ in the original ancient language of hebrew… there’s no word for ’spiritual’… it is because EVERYTHING is spiritual… in Jewish culture and even in the early Christian church, whatever you did was spiritual… the very act of feeding the hungry was spiritual, the act of commiting adultery was spiritual…
those who impose physical harm on us is also imposing spiritual harm on us…
and yes you can even say a spiritual weapon can be a physical weapon… however as Paul says in 2 Corithians 10, “The weapons we fight with are not the weapons of the world.” meaning it might not be the very weapon we use to fight w/…
Jesus defended the adulterer and no one dared to lift a stone at her. Not because Jesus used violent force and weapons against the crowd but used God’s words that is sharper than a double edged sword.
no it’s not common sense… common sense would’ve been Jesus to defend the woman by violence and force… but instead of using common sense, Christ used the word of God which piered the very heart of the pharasees that they could not impose any harm on the woman.
do i think that by me reading scripture while someone’s attacking my family would save them? maybe… maybe not…
or even putting my body b/w the victim and the attacker would save them? maybe…. maybe not…
but then again do i think by me putting my violent force to impose harm on the attacker would save my family? maybe… maybe not..
i believe that this matter is not black and white… , it’s not non-violence vs. violence… therefore we cannot jump to any conclusions regarding ‘how to handle a situation when…’,
b/c we have NO idea how we would act in those situations b/c we’ve never been in it.
i have mentioned in the previous comments that i’m NOT a pacifist, because in those situations i would physically intervene to stop the attacker… but that scripture and the OT does not give me the right to physically harm the attacker let alone kill him. It also does not give me the right to go to war against the oppressors.
all i can say is that, when faced w/ those horrible situations, i hope to bring glory to God’s name and not shame.