Jesus told us to be pacifists

[Thankful10]

(Matthew 5:39) “You have learnt how it was said: ‘Eye for eye and tooth for tooth.’ But I say this to you: offer the wicked man no resistance.”

(Matthew 5:43-44) “You have learnt how it was said, you must love your neighbor and hate your enemy, but I say this to you: love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you.”

 

[Church_Militant]

Your point? Do you have some comments or insights that need discussion?

 

[puzzleannie]

yes and when it was time for his arrest he told the apostles not to defend him with violence, but when it was time for them to go forth into the world and do battle on his behalf against satan those who oppress the poor, he told them to tie on their swords, or go buy a sword for those who did not have one. There is a time for peace and a time for war.

 

[Church_Militant]

yes and when it was time for his arrest he told the apostles not to defend him with violence, but when it was time for them to go forth into the world and do battle on his behalf against satan those who oppress the poor, he told them to tie on their swords, or go buy a sword for those who did not have one. There is a time for peace and a time for war.

Ecclesiastes 3: 8] a time to love, and a time to hate; a time for war, and a time for peace.

 

[Thankful10]

yes and when it was time for his arrest he told the apostles not to defend him with violence, but when it was time for them to go forth into the world and do battle on his behalf against satan those who oppress the poor, he told them to tie on their swords, or go buy a sword for those who did not have one. There is a time for peace and a time for war.

It is strange how when people don’t care to live what Jesus said, they will search scripture to find a loophole. Some people will say he wasn’t talking to us, as if the Bible was a history book, others will say it is hyperbole, some will point out where they believe Jesus contradicted himself. In this thread I am sure all of the above excuses will be used.

So in answer to the first evasion of what Jesus said: (Matthew 26:52) “Put your sword back, for all who draw the sword will die by the sword.”

Here is what some bible scholars said about that passage of scripture: The Apostles have taken the words of Jesus too literally and he closes the conversation abruptly. Also,

Jerusalem Bible: J. The purse to buy, the sword to procure by force the necessities of life. All this is symbolic of a mission in a hostile world.

K. The Apostles have taken the words of Jesus too literally and he closes the conversation abruptly.

 

[chessmane4e5]

(Matthew 5:39) “You have learnt how it was said: ‘Eye for eye and tooth for tooth.’ But I say this to you: offer the wicked man no resistance.”

(Matthew 5:43-44) “You have learnt how it was said, you must love your neighbor and hate your enemy, but I say this to you: love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you.”

Jesus entered the temple area and drove out all who were buying and selling there. He overturned the tables of the money changers and the benches of those selling doves. “It is written,” he said to them, “‘My house will be called a house of prayer,’ but you are making it a ‘den of robbers.’” Matt 21:12-13

This does not seem like a pacifist to me.

Or how are we to interpret this: (I paraphrased)
Jesus also said that if your hand causes you to stumble (sin), cut it off; if your foot causes you to stumble (sin), cut if off; if your eye causes you to stumble (sin), cut it out. It is better to enter the kingdom of heaven with one hand, or one foot, or one eye, than have both and suffer in hell. Mark 9:43-48

Are we really to do this? Of course not. If someone hits us in the face, are we to really turn the other cheek so they can hit us again? No.

Are we really supposed to love our enemies and pray for them. YES!

Do Christians just arbitrarily pick which bible passages to follow? No. By reading the entire bible, we are able to distinguish when Jesus was speaking literally or with hyperbole. Do different denominations disagree on this? Unfortunately yes. But I say the Catholic Church is the correct authority.

“And so I say to you, you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of the netherworld shall not prevail against it. I will give you the keys to the kingdom of heaven. Whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven; and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.” Matt 16:18-19

In other words, Peter is the first leader of the Church (aka Pope), hell will not defeat this church, and Peter has some special, what we call Infallibility.

Protestants and others will argue this (although even Martin Luther believed this, in fact he wanted to be pope) but a careful look at scripture reveals this to be true. People try and twist the Greek language to show that Jesus was not talking about Peter the rock, but actual rock. But we should remember, when Jesus spoke these words, it would have been in Aramaic, no Greek, and in that language their is no ambiguity.

 

[DOShea]

It is strange how when people don’t care to live what Jesus said, they will search scripture to find a loophole.

It isn’t searching to find a loophole to be honest about the example Christ lived for us. He was not always the pacifist. He frequently confronted people who were distorting the terms of the old covenant, hypocritically teaching it and in some cases using it as a way to lord over other men rather than being a conduit to help them connect to God.

It’s difficult to make a case of always and everywhere turning the other cheek no matter the offense when you have Jesus Himself driving animal sellers out of the temple with a weapon - a whip He made with His own hands, overturning tables that were used to scalp huge fees from faithful Jews just trying to pay their temple tax obligation from Mosaic law.

Trying to turn Jesus into nothing except a peaceful, arms-open-wide person that appears on children’s coloring books falls flat on its face when you have to deal with such things as a final judgment, where that same Jesus is not a pacifist by any means, sentencing people to eternal punishment in fire. Those two do not both fit into a coloring book Jesus.

What does fit is the notion that He taught us there was indeed evil in the world and we are to fight against that evil. Fight being resist, not give in to it. Show me the mother who, with some stranger grabbing her child and trying to take off with the baby, would not fight with all her strength to resist that. More to the point, show me the mother who would face that and simply turn her cheek, maybe offer than another child to take also. That’s absolute insanity, and if that is the logical conclusion of what it is to be moral, then morality collapses, reduced to absurdity.

What has the Church done when faced with heresy? Did it turn the other cheek, or hold a Council to take the sword to the heresy?

I think there is much more to the whole gospel than mere sentences about cheeks and swords.

 

[chessmane4e5]

It is strange how when people don’t care to live what Jesus said, they will search scripture to find a loophole. Some people will say he wasn’t talking to us, as if the Bible was a history book, others will say it is hyperbole, some will point out where they believe Jesus contradicted himself. In this thread I am sure all of the above excuses will be used.

So in answer to the first evasion of what Jesus said: (Matthew 26:52) “Put your sword back, for all who draw the sword will die by the sword.”

Here is what some bible scholars said about that passage of scripture: The Apostles have taken the words of Jesus too literally and he closes the conversation abruptly. Also,

Jerusalem Bible: J. The purse to buy, the sword to procure by force the necessities of life. All this is symbolic of a mission in a hostile world.

K. The Apostles have taken the words of Jesus too literally and he closes the conversation abruptly.

So are you agreeing with the OP and saying Jesus was a pacifist?

The key to scripture is also look at the context, not just one line.
“Put your sword back in its place,” Jesus said to him, “for all who draw the sword will die by the sword. Do you think I cannot call on my Father, and he will at once put at my disposal more than twelve legions of angels? But how then would the Scriptures be fulfilled that say it must happen in this way?” Matt 26:52-54

Why is Jesus saying to put away the sword, it is not because it is wrong to defend oneself, but that now is not the time, there is a bigger picture here.

The best evidence I can find is the fact that Jesus often used the example of the Good Shepard with his apostles and people he preached to.

We like to remember the image of the Shepard searching for the lost sheep, and carrying it home, and rejoicing. This is true, but the Shepard has another side, one that the people of time would have known as well. If a wolf were to attack his sheep, the Shepard would not tip-toe around, and carefully make his way toward the wolf. The Shepard would grab hold of his staff and run straight towards that wolf. He might have to push sheep down, step on some toes, but he would get there to defend his sheep from that wolf. And when he reached the wolf, he would use force to kill the wolf or drive it away.

Or what about the sheep that runs away and does not want to return to the flock? The Shepard would hit that sheep with the staff to make it go home. And if it refused he would try until the sheep died.

I agree that Jesus does not want us to fight, but I also believe in the Catholic teaching of a Just War. Defending oneself is, at times, necessary.

 

[Thankful10]

It isn’t searching to find a loophole to be honest about the example Christ lived for us. He was not always the pacifist. He frequently confronted people who were distorting the terms of the old covenant, hypocritically teaching it and in some cases using it as a way to lord over other men rather than being a conduit to help them connect to God.

It’s difficult to make a case of always and everywhere turning the other cheek no matter the offense when you have Jesus Himself driving animal sellers out of the temple with a weapon - a whip He made with His own hands, overturning tables that were used to scalp huge fees from faithful Jews just trying to pay their temple tax obligation from Mosaic law.

Trying to turn Jesus into nothing except a peaceful, arms-open-wide person that appears on children’s coloring books falls flat on its face when you have to deal with such things as a final judgment, where that same Jesus is not a pacifist by any means, sentencing people to eternal punishment in fire. Those two do not both fit into a coloring book Jesus.

What does fit is the notion that He taught us there was indeed evil in the world and we are to fight against that evil. Fight being resist, not give in to it. Show me the mother who, with some stranger grabbing her child and trying to take off with the baby, would not fight with all her strength to resist that. More to the point, show me the mother who would face that and simply turn her cheek, maybe offer than another child to take also. That’s absolute insanity, and if that is the logical conclusion of what it is to be moral, then morality collapses, reduced to absurdity.

What has the Church done when faced with heresy? Did it turn the other cheek, or hold a Council to take the sword to the heresy?

I think there is much more to the whole gospel than mere sentences about cheeks and swords.

Jesus is God, and as such he can and does punish evil. Jesus did not give us the right to kill another human.

Christians are temples of the Holy Spirit, and scripture tells us the if anyone destroys that temple they will be destroyed. The Second World War, and many other wars; had Christians killing Christians. I sure would rather have been the one killed.

In Jesus case it is you do as I say. We are going to be judged on how we live the Word of God.

(Matthew 7:21) “It is not those who say to me, ‘Lord, Lord’, who will enter the kingdom of Heaven but the person who does the will of My Father in Heaven. When the day comes many will say to me, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, cast out demons in your name, work many miracles in your name?’ Then I shall tell them to their faces: I have never known you; away from me, you evil men!”

 

[Sailor_Kenshin]

Your point? Do you have some comments or insights that need discussion?

I also wonder.

Holy Mother Church does believe in a just war.

From what Bible do you quote?

And we are not capable of self-interpreting Scripture, lest we go (as many do!) horribly astray, and each man becomes his own God, serving his own ego.

 

[chessmane4e5]

So what about Hitler?

Were Christians (or anybody for that matter) to simply stand back and let him kill people and take over the world?

Or the example already given about a mother protecting her children.

The key is intent and how the war is fought.

If someone breaks in my house and I shoot them in the back without warning, then yes I have murdered. Or if I called out and they turned around, and I saw they had a knife, yes that is murder. BUT if they were to start to approach me, I think I am justified to shoot them in the leg (notice this shot is not intended to kill, but merely stop the attacker and save my life). Now if the shot hit an artery and he assailant died, am I guilty of mortal sin? No, my intent was not to kill him.

This thinking needs to be applied to war as well. The USA going to war against terror in Iraq was, to put it nicely, insane. It was not a war that could not be won, but one that was sure to take innocent life. This is not a just war. Dropping bombs, when we know innocent civilians are there, is absolutely wrong.

If we were going to start this war, it should have been fought only on the ground. Would this have meant that more Americans would have died? Yes. But it would have spared many of the innocent lives that were lost. Given this approach, I also believe that the USA (or Bush or whomever is calling the shots) would have been less likely to go to war.

 

[chessmane4e5]

I also wonder.

Holy Mother Church does believe in a just war.

From what Bible do you quote?

And we are not capable of self-interpreting Scripture, lest we go (as many do!) horribly astray, and each man becomes his own God, serving his own ego.

catholic.com/library/Just_War_Doctrine_1.asp

You are correct on self-interpreting, but I would also like to added the fault of what I call “single line quoting”. It is so easy to grab one line of scripture and from that develop an entire belief system. The entire Bible (Old and New Testament) need to be considered. The Old Testament has teachings on war, and Jesus did not correct or change those. Jesus talked of “one on one” encounters of violence.

 

[puzzleannie]

passages OP cites refer specifically to a personal response to a personal enemy, not to a legitimate response to a threat to innocent persons on the part of government.

If you want to debate Catholic just war theory, cite the relevant CCC portion and debate it, but just slapping down random scripture quotes is not debate. You may prefer to carry this out on the social justice forum where similar discussions are already in progress. Since OP does not state his issue, we are at a loss as to what response he is inviting.

if you want to play “drop the verse” we can also find numerous cases where Jesus commanded his follower to protect the innocent.

 

[djeter]

So what about Hitler?

Were Christians (or anybody for that matter) to simply stand back and let him kill people and take over the world?

Or the example already given about a mother protecting her children.

The key is intent and how the war is fought.

If someone breaks in my house and I shoot them in the back without warning, then yes I have murdered. Or if I called out and they turned around, and I saw they had a knife, yes that is murder. BUT if they were to start to approach me, I think I am justified to shoot them in the leg (notice this shot is not intended to kill, but merely stop the attacker and save my life). Now if the shot hit an artery and he assailant died, am I guilty of mortal sin? No, my intent was not to kill him.

This thinking needs to be applied to war as well. The USA going to war against terror in Iraq was, to put it nicely, insane. It was not a war that could not be won, but one that was sure to take innocent life. This is not a just war. Dropping bombs, when we know innocent civilians are there, is absolutely wrong.

If we were going to start this war, it should have been fought only on the ground. Would this have meant that more Americans would have died? Yes. But it would have spared many of the innocent lives that were lost. Given this approach, I also believe that the USA (or Bush or whomever is calling the shots) would have been less likely to go to war.

From Malcolm Muggeridge:

Two Great Propositions
Jesus summarized all his teaching for us in two great propositions which have provided Christendom with, as it were, its moral and spiritual axis. The first and great commandment, he said , was: Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind, and the second , like unto it: Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself. On these commandments, he insisted, hang all the law and the prophets.

His manner of presenting them indicates their interdependence; unless we love God we cannot love our neighbor, and correspondingly, unless we love our neighbor we cannot love God… Once again , there has to be a balance; Christianity is a system of such balanced obligations –To God and Caesar, to flesh and spirit; to God and our neighbor, and so on. Happy the man who strikes the balance justly; to its imbalance are due most of our miseries and misfortunes, individual as well as collective."

And it seems to me the duty of this fallen world is to present all the temptations Man can invent. There is room for a Hitler and room for the man who opposes him. War is just part of the backdrop.

More of Muggeridge here:

payingattentiontothesky.com/2009/12/15/book-recommendation-jesus-by-malcolm-muggeridge/

and here:

payingattentiontothesky.com/2009/12/14/reading-selections-from-the-great-liberal-death-wish-malcolm-muggeridge/

dj

 

[Thankful10]

I also wonder.

Holy Mother Church does believe in a just war.

From what Bible do you quote?

And we are not capable of self-interpreting Scripture, lest we go (as many do!) horribly astray, and each man becomes his own God, serving his own ego.

How much interpretation does it take to understand this: (Matthew 5:39) “You have learnt how it was said: ‘Eye for eye and tooth for tooth.’ But I say this to you: offer the wicked man no resistance.”

Do you really think when you have to justify yourself to Jesus that the excuse: “But the Church said so” will really be acceptable? Jesus gave you his written Word, and his Holy Spirit to teach you, and you think because you didn’t take advantage of either your excuse will be acceptable?

 

[Thankful10]

So what about Hitler?

Were Christians (or anybody for that matter) to simply stand back and let him kill people and take over the world?

Or the example already given about a mother protecting her children.

The key is intent and how the war is fought.

If someone breaks in my house and I shoot them in the back without warning, then yes I have murdered. Or if I called out and they turned around, and I saw they had a knife, yes that is murder. BUT if they were to start to approach me, I think I am justified to shoot them in the leg (notice this shot is not intended to kill, but merely stop the attacker and save my life). Now if the shot hit an artery and he assailant died, am I guilty of mortal sin? No, my intent was not to kill him.

This thinking needs to be applied to war as well. The USA going to war against terror in Iraq was, to put it nicely, insane. It was not a war that could not be won, but one that was sure to take innocent life. This is not a just war. Dropping bombs, when we know innocent civilians are there, is absolutely wrong.

If we were going to start this war, it should have been fought only on the ground. Would this have meant that more Americans would have died? Yes. But it would have spared many of the innocent lives that were lost. Given this approach, I also believe that the USA (or Bush or whomever is calling the shots) would have been less likely to go to war.

A Christian does not have a right to kill period.

How much interpretation does it take to understand this: (Matthew 5:39) “You have learnt how it was said: ‘Eye for eye and tooth for tooth.’ But I say this to you: offer the wicked man no resistance.”

 

[Thankful10]

I also wonder.

Holy Mother Church does believe in a just war.

From what Bible do you quote?

And we are not capable of self-interpreting Scripture, lest we go (as many do!) horribly astray, and each man becomes his own God, serving his own ego.

By the way I mostly quote from the Jerusalem Bible, which is a Catholic Bible. I have CD of the New American Bible that I listen while I drive, and that is the newest Catholic Bible. I read other Bibles also.

 

[Thankful10]

passages OP cites refer specifically to a personal response to a personal enemy, not to a legitimate response to a threat to innocent persons on the part of government.

If you want to debate Catholic just war theory, cite the relevant CCC portion and debate it, but just slapping down random scripture quotes is not debate. You may prefer to carry this out on the social justice forum where similar discussions are already in progress. Since OP does not state his issue, we are at a loss as to what response he is inviting.

if you want to play “drop the verse” we can also find numerous cases where Jesus commanded his follower to protect the innocent.

No! Jesus never told anyone to use violence against another person. Also up until Constantine the Great coned the Church to allow people into his army, Christians were Pacifists.

 

[Thankful10]

So what about Hitler?

Were Christians (or anybody for that matter) to simply stand back and let him kill people and take over the world?

Or the example already given about a mother protecting her children.

The key is intent and how the war is fought.

If someone breaks in my house and I shoot them in the back without warning, then yes I have murdered. Or if I called out and they turned around, and I saw they had a knife, yes that is murder. BUT if they were to start to approach me, I think I am justified to shoot them in the leg (notice this shot is not intended to kill, but merely stop the attacker and save my life). Now if the shot hit an artery and he assailant died, am I guilty of mortal sin? No, my intent was not to kill him.

This thinking needs to be applied to war as well. The USA going to war against terror in Iraq was, to put it nicely, insane. It was not a war that could not be won, but one that was sure to take innocent life. This is not a just war. Dropping bombs, when we know innocent civilians are there, is absolutely wrong.

If we were going to start this war, it should have been fought only on the ground. Would this have meant that more Americans would have died? Yes. But it would have spared many of the innocent lives that were lost. Given this approach, I also believe that the USA (or Bush or whomever is calling the shots) would have been less likely to go to war.

The World needs laws, and law enforcers. Christians are not of the word. Christians are in the world but not part of the world.

 

[torch621]

The Church has taught infallibly for 2,000 years (unless you’re a Protestant who doesn’t believe in such things) that warfare is justified when certain conditions are met, aka Just War teaching. If you’re correct, then the Church has been mislead by the Holy Spirit and has been teaching an error for the past 2,000 years. But the Church is protected by the Holy Spirit from EVER teaching error, so she must be teaching truth when she teaches Just War. If that’s correct, and it is, then Jesus did not want us to be pacifists, otherwise the Church would not teach Just War.

BTW, the Scriptures are not subject to your private interpretation.