Jesus and Pacifism

[Smoke]

Responding to remarks on another, unrelated thread. I had said that Jesus condemned violence, and got the following answers.

Soldiers in the NT were not called to non-violence but not to complain about their pay...

That was John the Baptist speaking, not Jesus, and what he said was, "Do violence to no man, neither accuse any falsely; and be content with your wages."

Jesus told His followers to go sell their clothes to buy a sword (Luke 22:36),

Then 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.

For 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.

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

And then a little while later,

When they which were about him saw what would follow, they said unto him, Lord, shall we smite with the sword?
And one of them smote the servant of the high priest, and cut off his right ear.

And Jesus answered and said, Suffer ye thus far. And he touched his ear, and healed him.
​

Or, as Matthew has it:

And, behold, one of them which were with Jesus stretched out his hand, and drew his sword, and struck a servant of the high priest's, and smote off his ear.

Then said Jesus unto him, Put up again thy sword into his place: for all they that take the sword shall perish with the sword.
​

So did Jesus want his followers to have a sword so they could use it, or so they could be seen not using it when they had the opportunity? Seems pretty clear that it's the latter.

and praised a military man for His faith (Matthew 8:5-13).

But not for being a military man.

In heaven, Christ leads an army to go to war (Rev. 19:11-16).

Do you think the Apocalypse is to be read and interpreted literally?

And don't forget the first non-jew to be converted, Cornelius. Luke says that he was a Roman Centurion and a man that was very devout, and feared God. When he was converted by Peter, he was never once chastised for being a soldier, or told not to do it anymore. Acts 10

The Christian tradition about Cornelius is that he did leave soldiering after his conversion, but in any case I said that Jesus condemned violence, not that Peter did.

 

[Quiddity]

Figured this would come in handy.

The "Just War" as Classically Formulated by St. Ambrose and St. Augustine (3rd-4th cent. A.D.)

A) There is an organic connection between justice and necessary and just warfare.

B) War must be declared by the proper governmental authorities (Rom. 13:4).

C) War is to be fought only if all peaceful negotiations fail to attain justice (Deut. 20:10-12; Hebrews 12:14).

D) Both the cause and the motive for a war must be just.

E) War is engaged in only for defense purposes and the protection of the innocent (Gen. 14:14-16).

F) War is fought only with a realistic expectation for success, and must be justly waged:

i. Fought against soldiers, never civilians (Principle of Discrimination).

ii. Only as much force as is necessary to secure a lasting and stable peace is used (Principle of Proportion).

 

[Smoke]

The "Just War" as Classically Formulated by St. Ambrose and St. Augustine (3rd-4th cent. A.D.)

Hmmm .... seems to me like quite a leap to assume that the teachings of Ambrose and Augustine are necessarily identical to those of Jesus.

In fact, it's interesting to note that the Eastern Orthodox Churches don't have a theory of just war, or accept the Western theory.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

That was John the Baptist speaking, not Jesus, and what he said was, "Do violence to no man, neither accuse any falsely; and be content with your wages."

Quite so. Jesus was a disciple of John the Baptist and never corrected his teacher.

The Do no violencedoes not absolve the soldiers from doing their police and military duties, which includes killing.

 

[Mister_T]

The Do no violencedoes not absolve the soldiers from doing their police and military duties, which includes killing.

Isn't that a bit of a contradiction? "Do violence to no man but killing your enemies is ok"....

 

[Smoke]

The Do no violence does not absolve the soldiers from doing their police and military duties, which includes killing.

"Do violence to no man" pretty clearly precludes killing.

But if your interpretation of John's admonition is correct, then I'd have to disagree that Jesus never contradicted John. What do you do with "Put up again thy sword into his place: for all they that take the sword shall perish with the sword," and "But I say unto you, That ye resist not evil: but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also"?

 

[angellous_evangellous]

Isn't that a bit of a contradiction? "Do violence to no man but killing your enemies is ok"....

No. It is the duty of a soldier to kill, but not to rape and pilliage and destroy the citizenry.

It is significant that the soldiers were Roman - an occupying force in Palestine. They were basically a police force, and a conquering force in the world. Both John the Baptist and Jesus had ample oppotunity, and especially the disciples and others who preserved their tradition, to be anti-war but both of them explicitly supported the Romans.

John said for Romans to do their duty justly. The instruction is for the soldiers not to unjustly take advantage of their role.

Jesus' teaching to turn the other cheek and walk the extra mile in the Sermon on the Mount in Matthew is another explicit support of the Roman occupation. Soldiers were allowed to strike a Jew once, and Jesus said to allow them to hit twice. Soldiers were allowed to force someone to carry their instruments of war for one mile - and Jesus said to carry it two miles.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

"Do violence to no man" pretty clearly precludes killing.

But if your interpretation of John's admonition is correct, then I'd have to disagree that Jesus never contradicted John. What do you do with "Put up again thy sword into his place: for all they that take the sword shall perish with the sword," and "But I say unto you, That ye resist not evil: but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also"?

I cannot imagine how you can possibly begin to defend this. Soldiers kill. It's the primary reason for their existence. They carry swords to end resistence. The only way for them not to kill is if they are not soldiers, and John explictly condones their continuance as soldiers and their pay to keep the peace with the sword.

 

[Smoke]

No. It is the duty of a soldier to kill, but not to rape and pilliage and destroy the citizenry.

It is significant that the soldiers were Roman - an occupying force in Palestine. They were basically a police force, and a conquering force in the world. Both John the Baptist and Jesus had ample oppotunity, and especially the disciples and others who preserved their tradition, to be anti-war but both of them explicitly supported the Romans.

John said for Romans to do their duty justly. The instruction is for the soldiers not to unjustly take advantage of their role.

Jesus' teaching to turn the other cheek and walk the extra mile in the Sermon on the Mount in Matthew is another explicit support of the Roman occupation. Soldiers were allowed to strike a Jew once, and Jesus said to allow them to hit twice. Soldiers were allowed to force someone to carry their instruments of war for one mile - and Jesus said to carry it two miles.

The soldiers in question were Gentiles, and Jesus wasn't going out of his way to teach Gentiles; in fact, he got a little snotty about that subject a couple times. He's giving instructions for how to deal with violent people, and his instructions are uniformly that we deal with violence by non-violence. At no point does he endorse the violence of the occupying troops.

And what John said was, "Do violence to no man." He didn't, in fact, say "for Romans to do their duty justly" or for soldiers to kill, but "not to unjustly take advantage of their role." That's just what you wish he had said.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

The soldiers in question were Gentiles, and Jesus wasn't going out of his way to teach Gentiles; in fact, he got a little snotty about that subject a couple times. He's giving instructions for how to deal with violent people, and his instructions are uniformly that we deal with violence by non-violence. At no point does he endorse the violence of the occupying troops.

And what John said was, "Do violence to no man." He didn't, in fact, say "for Romans to do their duty justly" or for soldiers to kill, but "not to unjustly take advantage of their role." That's just what you wish he had said.

Carrying the soldiers' instruments of war is as an explicit support of the occupying force as one can have. Jesus also encouraged the people to pay thier temple taxes which supported the Roman occupation, and honored the role of the tax collector, no doubt encouraging them to be just in their role, like the soldiers.

When we have Jesus encouraging the Roman occupation by both carrying their supplies and funding them, I don't see how this argument is weakened in the least by Jesus focusing on the Jews rather than the Gentiles. In any case, the tax collectors were Jewish.

 

[Smoke]

I cannot imagine how you can possibly begin to defend this. Soldiers kill. It's the primary reason for their existence. They carry swords to end resistence. The only way for them not to kill is if they are not soldiers, and John explictly condones their continuance as soldiers and their pay to keep the peace with the sword.

Supposing, for the sake of argument, that John accepted that those of his followers who were already in the military might continue in the military, how do we make the leap from that to negating the teachings of Jesus about violence?

 

[Smoke]

Carrying the soldiers' instruments of war is as an explicit support of the occupying force as one can have. Jesus also encouraged the people to pay thier temple taxes which supported the Roman occupation, and honored the role of the tax collector, no doubt encouraging them to be just in their role, like the soldiers.

You're confusing Jesus' teaching of non-resistance with endorsement of violence. Jesus is not saying, "It's good to be violent, and it's good to be in the military and occupy other countries," he's saying, in view of the fact that there are violent people in the world, this is how you ought to respond to them. There's a huge difference.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

Supposing, for the sake of argument, that John accepted that those of his followers who were already in the military might continue in the military, how do we make the leap from that to negating the teachings of Jesus about violence?

IMHO, the teachings of Jesus concerning non-violence are part of a tradition in the NT that give Christian testimony that Christianity were not a subversive force in the Roman Empire. Christians were basically second-class citizens who were persecuted (cf Pliny to Trajan, Asia Minor 110 CE) because of their beliefs.

The NT traditions therefore constitute a conscious witness to the Romans that Christians were not agaist traditional Roman values. The earliest Christian writings had the household codes (woman submits to man, child to parents, slave to master = Platonic stablity of the state from the stablity of the family) which mirrored the Stoic/Cynic codes, which were also apologetic.

The non-violent teachings of Jesus are rooted in the teaching that his kingdom (=the kingdom of God) was not of this world = therefore not a threat to Rome and not a valid reason to kill Christians. In fact, Christians could point to the teachings of Jesus and show how it supports Rome: pay taxes, serve as soldiers, and help soldiers carry out their mission. However, because the kingdom of God is not of the world, Christians do not need a sword to bring about the kingdom and they are therefore able to serve Rome and not divert from their gospel mission.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

You're confusing Jesus' teaching of non-resistance with endorsement of violence. Jesus is not saying, "It's good to be violent, and it's good to be in the military and occupy other countries," he's saying, in view of the fact that there are violent people in the world, this is how you ought to respond to them. There's a huge difference.

There's not a huge difference when the instructions are to carry the instruments of war for an army who is without doubt going to use the instruments to kill.

It's like Joseph of Arimethea (sp) carrying the cross of Christ. He voluntarily submitted to carrying the cross for the Romans who undoubtedly were going to use the cross to crucify Jesus on it.

 

[Smoke]

There's not a huge difference when the instructions are to carry the instruments of war for an army who is without doubt going to use the instruments to kill.

Here's what he says:

Ye have heard that it hath been said, An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth: but I say unto you, That ye resist not evil: but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also. And if any man will sue thee at the law, and take away thy coat, let him have thy cloak also. And whosoever shall compel thee to go a mile, go with him twain.
​

He's talking about not resisting evil. Not only is there no implicit endorsement of the soldiers' actions, he explicitly calls them evil.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

Here's what he says:

Ye have heard that it hath been said, An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth: but I say unto you, That ye resist not evil: but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also. And if any man will sue thee at the law, and take away thy coat, let him have thy cloak also. And whosoever shall compel thee to go a mile, go with him twain.

​

He's talking about not resisting evil. Not only is there no implicit endorsement of the soldiers' actions, he explicitly calls them evil.

It's evil only with respect to the personal injustice.

Otherwise, we have Jesus not only pacifist, which he is not, but an anarchist. Is it evil to justly sue another person? No - the Romans were just as sue-happy as Americans are today to sue over every little thing.

Being forced to carry the soldier's arms was an evil of the occupation that Jesus supported explicitly.

 

[Halcyon]

The best teaching of Jesus on this subject, was his life. He led by example in this case. Did Jesus ever kill, ever harm anyone in fact?
No, he cured, healed and loved his neighbour and his enemy.

To condone killing in the name of Jesus is, IMHO, the greatest of real heresies.


As a side note, was Jesus a disciple of the baptist?
Did he ever call John Master?
From my understanding, John baptised Jesus at Jesus's request, Jesus then entered into direct competition with John, taking many of his disciples away from the baptist.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

To condone killing in the name of Jesus is, IMHO, the greatest of real heresies.

I agree.

As a side note, was Jesus a disciple of the baptist?
Did he ever call John Master?
From my understanding, John baptised Jesus at Jesus's request, Jesus then entered into direct competition with John, taking many of his disciples away from the baptist.

Being baptised by John as well as taking on his disciples is all the evidence that we need. The so-called request is most likely a face-saving addition by the disciples of Christ.

EDIT: FWIW I gave several lectures to groups of NT ph.d. students - I refer to Jesus as a disciple of John quite regularly with no protest at all... the baptism event really is the most convincing evidence for this, as well as the fact that in the Gospels the disciples and Jesus were always aware of John...

 

[BrandonE]

Thanks, AE and MB for discussing this directly. You both played around at it last week in the "evil as a mean to an end" thread, but I'm glad to see this directly discussed.

It's interesting to me to watch this discussion. Both of you cite scripture, and both make convincing arguments, but I think honestly with the limited amount of scripture on the subject and the possibility of interpreting it differently, there's no way to clearly decide which is unquestionably right from a historical perspective. To me, it seems to be a clear example of how people of different consciences can make respectable decisions and still disagree on the prinicples.


As far as the actual topic, I'm with MidnightBlue on this one.

 

[Mister_T]

Being forced to carry the soldier's arms was an evil of the occupation that Jesus supported explicitly

Where exactly? And is it clear cut?