Ron Sider, in If Jesus is Lord , examines the Sermon on the Mount and its implications for violence, war, and pacifism. I consider Jesus’ teachings to be the most significant location for this entire discussion. If a kind of non-violence or pacifism can be found here … and if Jesus is Lord, the discussion is over. If not, the claims for pacifism are all but defeated.
“…love your enemy…” - the real question: what does it mean to love one’s enemy?
(A question akin to asking, “Who is my neighbor?”. Often used to justify one’s self.)
I often go to what you said, Scot, in your commentary of the Sermon on the Mount. Loving someone means you are for, with, and unto that person. If you violate someone, you cannot be for them. You cannot be with someone if push them away (or separated by boarders). You cannot care for a person’s future wellbeing (unto) if they are dead!
Yes, Jesus' teaching goes beyond the OT. He is the "one like Moses" sent to revise and transcend The Law of the OT. Of course, he is also saying he came to "fulfill the Law." In my understanding his teaching is a refinement, filling out of the Law, clarifying its original intention, pointing the way on the trajectory it lead.
However, the examples Jesus gives of how you are to behave are examples of personal response, not that of governing officials. He doesn't say that no one should be responsible for maintaining social order through the discipline Paul refers to as God's agent for wrath through wielding the sword.
It is true that some early Christian writers extend Jesus' teaching to the rejection of participation in warfare. But not all, and it is remarkable, and I think significant that Roman soldiers who become believers in and followers of Christ are not recorded in Acts as having been told to stop being soldiers. That seems to me to be a barrier to acceptance of complete Christian pacifism. There seems to be a realistic acceptance of the need for the threat of counter violence exercised by those whose job is part of governments, at least.
The only reasonable way for Christians to recognize that Jesus' commands to not retaliate violently have a valid place in discipleship is the one Ron Sider has as number 7: Jesus’s command not to kill enemies applies to private not public roles. I don't think his arguments against the non-pacifist view are valid, and every one of them except possibly the 5th and last one can easily be refuted, mostly by simple negations or counterpoints. Even the first three centuries of Christian belief and practice can reasonably be relativized because of the idolatry involved and the obvious fact that the purposes of Roman rule were in no way compatible with the purposes of the proclamation and living out of the gospel. That, of course, changed dramatically when Christianity was made legal and then in so many ways tragically made the only valid religion in the Roman domain.
It is not just pragmatism by which Jesus' teaching has been interpreted as dealing primarily with personal matters. It seems to me that realism suggests that Christianity would not have proliferated as extensively as it has without the aid of worldly governments. Islam would have conquered all of Christendom, for instance. Then much later Communism would have prevailed if it weren't for Christians willing to oppose it violently. Is it possible to interpret the evidence of the early church as unanimously against Christian participation in the violence of government? Yes. Is it also possible that Jesus never said or implied that it was always sinful to participate in government violence and killing? Yes. Given that ambiguity I've concluded that we should not consider Christian participation in governmental use of force to be necessarily sinful. I suppose there are churches that do disfellowship disciples who are members of police or armed forces, but I think they may be sinning if they do.
PS: I was a convinced Christian pacifist for about 45 years, but have recently revised my thinking because of the lack of explicit New Testament teaching against participation in official armed opposition to injustice, and the obvious examples of God having commanded that very thing in the OT (hence implying that it is not always sinful). Stopping the proliferation of violent evil and oppression (genocide!) just can't always be wrong.
As a Messianic, I think Yeshua could not contradict Torah/Tanakh and he says as much in Mat 5. What I think he is doing is correctly interpreting Torah/Tanakh. If you wish further discussion, just say so.
“…love your enemy…” - the real question: what does it mean to love one’s enemy?
(A question akin to asking, “Who is my neighbor?”. Often used to justify one’s self.)
I often go to what you said, Scot, in your commentary of the Sermon on the Mount. Loving someone means you are for, with, and unto that person. If you violate someone, you cannot be for them. You cannot be with someone if push them away (or separated by boarders). You cannot care for a person’s future wellbeing (unto) if they are dead!
Yes, Jesus' teaching goes beyond the OT. He is the "one like Moses" sent to revise and transcend The Law of the OT. Of course, he is also saying he came to "fulfill the Law." In my understanding his teaching is a refinement, filling out of the Law, clarifying its original intention, pointing the way on the trajectory it lead.
However, the examples Jesus gives of how you are to behave are examples of personal response, not that of governing officials. He doesn't say that no one should be responsible for maintaining social order through the discipline Paul refers to as God's agent for wrath through wielding the sword.
It is true that some early Christian writers extend Jesus' teaching to the rejection of participation in warfare. But not all, and it is remarkable, and I think significant that Roman soldiers who become believers in and followers of Christ are not recorded in Acts as having been told to stop being soldiers. That seems to me to be a barrier to acceptance of complete Christian pacifism. There seems to be a realistic acceptance of the need for the threat of counter violence exercised by those whose job is part of governments, at least.
The only reasonable way for Christians to recognize that Jesus' commands to not retaliate violently have a valid place in discipleship is the one Ron Sider has as number 7: Jesus’s command not to kill enemies applies to private not public roles. I don't think his arguments against the non-pacifist view are valid, and every one of them except possibly the 5th and last one can easily be refuted, mostly by simple negations or counterpoints. Even the first three centuries of Christian belief and practice can reasonably be relativized because of the idolatry involved and the obvious fact that the purposes of Roman rule were in no way compatible with the purposes of the proclamation and living out of the gospel. That, of course, changed dramatically when Christianity was made legal and then in so many ways tragically made the only valid religion in the Roman domain.
It is not just pragmatism by which Jesus' teaching has been interpreted as dealing primarily with personal matters. It seems to me that realism suggests that Christianity would not have proliferated as extensively as it has without the aid of worldly governments. Islam would have conquered all of Christendom, for instance. Then much later Communism would have prevailed if it weren't for Christians willing to oppose it violently. Is it possible to interpret the evidence of the early church as unanimously against Christian participation in the violence of government? Yes. Is it also possible that Jesus never said or implied that it was always sinful to participate in government violence and killing? Yes. Given that ambiguity I've concluded that we should not consider Christian participation in governmental use of force to be necessarily sinful. I suppose there are churches that do disfellowship disciples who are members of police or armed forces, but I think they may be sinning if they do.
PS: I was a convinced Christian pacifist for about 45 years, but have recently revised my thinking because of the lack of explicit New Testament teaching against participation in official armed opposition to injustice, and the obvious examples of God having commanded that very thing in the OT (hence implying that it is not always sinful). Stopping the proliferation of violent evil and oppression (genocide!) just can't always be wrong.
As a Messianic, I think Yeshua could not contradict Torah/Tanakh and he says as much in Mat 5. What I think he is doing is correctly interpreting Torah/Tanakh. If you wish further discussion, just say so.