Contributors

Sunday, November 17, 2013

Deeply Rooted In Nonviolence

I'm not much of a Wikipedia guy but their entry on Christian pacifism is excellent. We sadly forget how our Savior was deeply rooted in nonviolence...

10 comments:

Juris Imprudent said...

Believe in salvation through me or suffer eternal torment.

Yep, really rooted in non-violence.

Anonymous said...

“Do not think that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I have not come to bring peace, but a sword. For I have come to set a man against his father, and a daughter against her mother, and a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law.”
— Jesus, Matthew 10:34-35

And Jesus entered the temple and drove out all who sold and bought in the temple, and he overturned the tables of the money-changers and the seats of those who sold pigeons.
— Matthew 21:12

Then I saw an angel standing in the sun, and with a loud voice he called to all the birds that fly directly overhead, “Come, gather for the great supper of God, to eat the flesh of kings, the flesh of captains, the flesh of mighty men, the flesh of horses and their riders, and the flesh of all men, both free and slave, both small and great.” And I saw the beast and the kings of the earth with their armies gathered to make war against him who was sitting on the horse and against his army. And the beast was captured, and with it the false prophet who in its presence had done the signs by which he deceived those who had received the mark of the beast and those who worshiped its image. These two were thrown alive into the lake of fire that burns with sulfur. And the rest were slain by the sword that came from the mouth of him who was sitting on the horse [that's Jesus], and all the birds were gorged with their flesh.
— Revelation 19:17–21

Of course, this was previously addressed and ignored.

More here, here, and here.

Mark Ward said...

previously addressed and ignored.

So was what Jesus said to Simon Peter in the Garden of Gethsemane...

Anonymous said...

Do you think that I cannot appeal to my Father, and he will at once send me more than twelve legions of angels? But how then should the Scriptures be fulfilled, that it must be so?” At that hour Jesus said to the crowds, “Have you come out as against a robber, with swords and clubs to capture me? Day after day I sat in the temple teaching, and you did not seize me. But all this has taken place that the Scriptures of the prophets might be fulfilled.”
— Matthew 26:53–56

Do you suppose those angels would just stand around and not exert any force?

And earlier than night:

He said to them, “But now let the one who has a moneybag take it, and likewise a knapsack. And let the one who has no sword sell his cloak and buy one.”
— Luke 22:36

What is a sword used for?

Jesus was not a pacifist. If he was, he would have told soldiers to stop being soldiers. He didn't.

Soldiers also asked him, “And we, what shall we do?” And he said to them, “Do not extort money from anyone by threats or by false accusation, and be content with your wages.”
— Luke 3:14

Read the links I posted ("here, here, and here").

Anonymous said...

One more question:

Did Jesus take the sword from Peter, or make him get rid of it?

Mark Ward said...

Hmm...

http://www.americanthinker.com/2006/10/jesus_and_the_sword_verse.html

Just what I said in our last debate and why I don't comment much anymore.

Larry said...

Yeah, Wikipedia's kind of advanced. You're definitely better off sticking with Maher and Stewart. Best to learn to crawl before you start trying to walk. But be sure to wear your helmet when you do.

Anonymous said...

http://www.americanthinker.com/2006/10/jesus_and_the_sword_verse.html

Hmmmm… Mark ignores every other single thing I posted and pretends a response to a single point answers it all. A perfect example of the cherry picking fallacy.

Of course, I didn't give any commentary on that passage. What Jesus was saying is that He came to teach things that He knew would cause conflict. And it did. Just look at what happened to Him. He was put to death for teaching what He taught. Yet He taught it anyway. Is someone who knowingly teaches something that causes conflict really a pacifist?

If Micah 7:6 was implicitly echoed in Jesus’ prediction of family division in v. 21, here the allusion becomes explicit. Micah spoke of the threatening situation in his own day, but the passage was commonly understood in Jewish interpretation to refer to the woes of the messianic age.7 This distressing vision, like the “sword” of v. 34, is also presented as Jesus’ purpose in “coming.” The listing of the feuding parties in v. 35 is quite closely based on the LXX wording, but instead of Micah’s separate verbs for the actions of the son and the daughter (“dishonor” and “rise against”) Matthew supplies a single initial verb, “to divide” (extending the image of the sword in v. 34), which governs each of the following broken relationships. In each case, unlike in v. 21, it is the younger member who is “against” the older, but any suggestion of a one-sided hostility on the part of the younger generation8 is ruled out not only by v. 21 but also by the broad summary in v. 36 (which echoes the sense rather than the words of the final clause in the Micah text; see p. 406, nn. 3, 4). No one can trust any other member even of their closest family circle. Like many prophetic oracles, this saying is cast in an absolute form which needs to be set alongside other contrasting aspects of Jesus’ teaching. Family enmity is not a virtue in itself, nor is it the universal experience of Jesus’ disciples, but it is a matter of priorities. Loyalty to Jesus and his mission comes first, and the result of that may be that family ties are strained to breaking point. But there is a new family relationship for disciples of Jesus which more than compensates for what may be lost by loyalty to him (12:46–50; 19:27–29).
— R. T. France, The Gospel of Matthew (NICNT; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2007), 408-409.

Anonymous said...

Then there's the similar passage in Luke:

Do you think that I have come to give peace on earth? No, I tell you, but rather division. For from now on in one house there will be five divided, three against two and two against three. They will be divided, father against son and son against father, mother against daughter and daughter against mother, mother-in-law against her daughter-in-law and daughter-in-law against mother-in-law.”
— Luke 12:51–53

Jesus’ question, “Do you think I have come to bring peace?” underscores Jesus’ awareness that the presence of division and judgment will, for many, stand in stark contrast to what might have been expected of the divine intervention. Indeed, it seems to stand in tension with the Lukan representation of Jesus’ own mission. After all, the birth narratives had moved into the foreground the hope for peace (1:79; 2:14), Jesus himself had pronounced peace in the course of his redemptive activity (7:50; 8:48), and he had taught his followers to do the same (10:5–6); moreover, later in the narrative Peter will represent the content of the gospel as “peace” (Acts 10:36). How can this expression of Jesus’ mission judgment expressed already in family division be harmonized with the gospel of peace? Hints have already been given in the narrative. Thus, for example, Jesus’ communication of peace to the sinful woman from the city is accompanied by disapproval from his table companions (7:36–50). As Luke has continually shown, and as Jesus has endeavored to teach his followers, the realization of God’s purpose will engender opposition from those who serve a contrary aim. Both Simeon and John had prophesied Jesus’ role as one who would divide Israel (2:34–35; 3:17); major streams of Second Temple Jewish speculation held that the coming of the age of salvation would be accompanied by great distress; and Jesus himself had emphasized the centrality of suffering and death in the consummation of God’s purpose (cf. 9:21–22).

Joel B. Green, The Gospel of Luke (NICNT; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1997), 510-511.

Anonymous said...

Then there is this verse:

“Blessed are the peacemakers, for they shall be called sons of God.”
— Matthew 5:9

What does it mean to make peace? Who was more successful at making peace; Neville "Peace in our time" Chamberlain, or Winston "We shall fight on the beaches" Churchill?

The answer should be obvious. Still, look at it this way:

If possible, so far as it depends on you, live peaceably with all.
— Romans 12:18

Why the qualifications? Because it is not always possible to live in peace.

For everything there is a season, and a time for every matter under heaven:
a time to kill, and a time to heal;
a time to break down, and a time to build up;
a time to love, and a time to hate;
a time for war, and a time for peace.

— Ecclesiastes 3:1, 3, 8

Peace is an important goal, something to be strived for, but it is not the most important thing. Truth and obeying God is.

he raised up David to be their king, of whom he testified and said, ‘I have found in David the son of Jesse a man after my heart, who will do all my will.’
— Acts 13:22

Remember what David was known for:

But God said to me [David], ‘You may not build a house for my name, for you are a man of war and have shed blood.’
— 1 Chronicles 28:3

Remember, what will finally allow peace to exist will be God destroying all those who refuse to follow Him be tossing them in Hell. That ain't pacifism.