Why did the church change its stand on the use of force?

[bengal_fan]

in 300 a.d. (or c.e. depending on where you are coming from) it was an excommunicable offense to:

1. join the military
2. use violence for the purpose of war
3. use violence for the purpose to defend some one else
4. use violence for the purpose to defend yourself

in other words, it was never permitted for some one to fight back in any case within Christianity for at least the first 300 years.

by 450 a.d. ONLY Christians were permitted to be in the military (of course we know that this has to do with the influence of the government upon the church… however…).

what theological reasons does the church have for changing its stance on the use of force? how does augustine’s just war doctrine not contradict the 300 years of complete pacifism the church held to (even unto death under penalty of excommunication)?

something i have been wondering lately.

 

[puzzleannie]

source for your first statement?

 

[bengal_fan]

source for your first statement?

william placher Readings in the History of Christian Thought Volume 1

Alaister McGrath History of Christian Theology

too many of the ECF’s writings to mention them all. all dealing with the fact that the Christians refused to be in the military, refused to witness executions, refused to defend themselves or take up arms for any reason.

augustine’s just war theory was written because it was a revolutionary stance for a Christian to take, and even his just war doctrine did not include self-defense.

 

[puzzleannie]

your OP states the Church forbade these activities.
your response states individual Christians refused to participate in these activities.
which is it?
if you don’t give the relevant citations there is really no way to give an informed answer.

 

[bengal_fan]

your OP states the Church forbade these activities.
your response states individual Christians refused to participate in these activities.
which is it?
if you don’t give the relevant citations there is really no way to give an informed answer.

come on, potato potatoe.

i gave relevant sources. this isn’t a doctoral dissertation here. if you don’t believe me, don’t acknowlege. if you want to research it, do that as well. look at the books i posted (the placher one is just a collection of ECF writings). go to the websites that allow you to read many of the ECFs and search war, violence, self-defense. i stand by my statement.

i have time right now to post just one against capital punishment:

Athenagoras:
“For when they know that we cannot endure even to see a man put to death, though justly; who them can accuse us of murder of cannibalism?”
From: A Plea for the Christians

 

[rwoehmke]

I have only four comments: First not everything said by the ECF’s has been or ever will be declared infallible by Pope or Council. Second not being the government in power what would have happened to Christians who fought back. The Jews tried it and you can readily see what happened. Third, with Rome being what it was, a Christian soldier would have probably been required at one time or another to take part in persecuting fellow Christians. Fourth, by the time of Augustine the official state religion was Christianity. Augustine would have been totally aware of the ideas of the ECF’s and apparently developed them into a workable teaching to fit his times.

You well know that even today we have conscientious objectors who see any war as wrong and some who would rather die than defend themselves. I may not agree with them, but I do admire their fortitude in living out their convictions. We have an issue here that will never be totally resolved one way or the other.

 

[bengal_fan]

i know it’s long, but here is a list of quotes regarding the subject at hand.

Early Christians on Military and Government Service
Christians did not participate in the defense of Jerusalem when their nation was under siege from the Romans in 70 CE, choosing instead to leave the city. Eusebius Ecclesiastical History 5.3
Justin: “We who hated and slew one another, and because of (differences in) customs would not share a common hearth with those who were not of our tribe, now, after the appearance of Christ, have become sociable, and pray for our enemies, and try to persuade those who hate (us) unjustly, in order that they, living according to the good suggestions of Christ, may share our hope of obtaining the same (reward) from the God who is Master of all? First Apology 14.3: cf also 39.3. “We, who had been filled with war and mutual slaughter and every wickedness, have each one–all the world over–changed the instruments of war, the swords into ploughs and the spears into farming implements, and we cultivate piety, righteousness, love for men, faith, (and) the hope which is from the Father Himself through the Crucified One.” Dialogue 110
Athenagoras: “For when they know that we cannot endure even to see a man put to death, though justly; who of them can accuse us of murder or cannibalism? Who does not reckon among the things of greatest interest the contests of gladiators and wild beasts, especially those which are given by you? But we, deeming that to see a man put to death is much the same as killing him, have abjured such spectacles.” A Plea for the Christians, 35.

Ambrose of Milan (Augustine’s baptizer): Refused to fight against the imperial soldiers when they tried to seize the basilica in Milan, yet would not relinquish the building. “I cannot give up the building, yet I must not fight…I have arms but only in the name of Christ; I have the power of offering up my body.” Letters, 20:19-28

Cyprian: Messianic age prophesied in Isaiah and Micah re: beating swords into plowshares means that God intended iron for the cultivation of the earth not killing. Dress of Virgins 11. “Adultery, fraud, homicide is mortal sin (mortale crimen) … after celebrating the eucharist, the hand is not (i.e. ought not to be) spotted with (the use of) the sword and with blood.” On the Advantage of Patience, 14.

Tertullian: “How will he serve in the army even during peacetime without the sword that Jesus Christ has taken away? Even if soldiers came to John and got advice on how they ought to act, even if the centurion became a believer, the Lord by taking away Peter’s sword, disarmed every soldier thereafter. We are not allowed to wear any uniform that symbolizes a sinful act.” On Idolatry, 19.3.

Tertullian: “In short, the coming procession of a new law out of this ‘house of the God of Jacob’ Isaiah in the ensuing words announces, saying, ‘For from Zion shall go out a law, and the word of the Lord out of Jerusalem, and shall judge among the nations,’-that is, among us, who have been called out of the nations,-‘and they shall join to beat their swords into ploughs, and their lances into sickles; and nations shall not take up sword against nation, and they shall no more learn to fight.’ Who else, therefore, are understood but we, who, fully taught by the new law, observe these practices,-the old law being obliterated, the coming of whose abolition the action itself demonstrates? For the wont of the old law was to avenge itself by the vengeance of the sword, and to pluck out ‘eye for eye,’ and to inflict retaliatory revenge for injury. But the new law’s wont was to point to clemency, and to convert to tranquility the pristine ferocity of ‘swords’ and ‘lances,’ and to remodel the pristine execution of ‘war’ upon the rivals and foes of the law into the pacific actions of ‘ploughing’ and ‘tilling’ the land. Therefore as we have shown above that the coming cessation of the old law and of the carnal circumcision was declared, so, too, the observance of the new law and the spiritual circumcision has shone out into the voluntary obediences of peace.” An Answer to the Jews, 3.

 

[bengal_fan]

continued

Tertullian: “To begin with the real ground of the military crown, I think we must first inquire whether warfare is proper at all for Christians. What sense is there in discussing the merely accidental, when that on which it rests is to be condemned? Do we believe it lawful for a human oath to be superadded to one divine, for a man to come under promise to another master after Christ, and to abjure father, mother, and all nearest kinsfolk, whom even the law has commanded us to honour and love next to God Himself, to whom the gospel, too, holding them only of less account than Christ, has in like manner rendered honour? Shall it be held lawful to make an occupation of the sword, when the Lord proclaims that he who uses the sword shall perish by the sword? And shall the son of peace take part in the battle when it does not become him even to sue at law? And shall he apply the chain, and the prison, and the torture, and the punishment, who is not the avenger even of his own wrongs? Shall he, forsooth, either keep watch-service for others more than for Christ, or shall he do it on the Lord’s day, when he does not even do it for Christ Himself? And shall he keep guard before the temples which he has renounced? And shall he take a meal where the apostle has forbidden him? And shall he diligently protect by night those whom in the day-time he has put to flight by his exorcisms, leaning and resting on the spear the while with which Christ’s side was pierced? Shall he carry a flag, too, hostile to Christ? And shall he ask a watchword from the emperor who has already received one from God? Shall he be disturbed in death by the trumpet of the trumpeter, who expects to be aroused by the angel’s trump? And shall the Christian be burned according to camp rule, when he was not permitted to burn incense to an idol, when to him Christ remitted the punishment of fire? Then how many other offences there are involved in the performances of camp offices, which we must hold to involve a transgression of God’s law, you may see by a slight survey. The very carrying of the name over from the camp of light to the camp of darkness is a violation of it. Of course, if faith comes later, and finds any preoccupied with military service, their case is different, as in the instance of those whom John used to receive for baptism, and of those most faithful centurions, I mean the centurion whom Christ approves, and the centurion whom Peter instructs; yet, at the same time, when a man has become a believer, and faith has been sealed, there must be either an immediate abandonment of it, which has been the course with many; or all sorts of quibbling will have to be resorted to in order to avoid offending God, and that is not allowed even outside of military service; or, last of all, for God the fate must be endured which a citizen-faith has been no less ready to accept. Neither does military service hold out escape from punishment of sins, or exemption from martyrdom. Nowhere does the Christian change his character. There is one gospel, and the same Jesus, who will one day deny every one who denies, and acknowledge every one who acknowledges God,-who will save, too, the life which has been lost for His sake; but, on the other hand, destroy that which for gain has been saved to His dishonour. With Him the faithful citizen is a soldier, just as the faithful soldier is a citizen. A state of faith admits no plea of necessity; they are under no necessity to sin, whose one necessity is, that they do not sin. For if one is pressed to the offering of sacrifice and the sheer denial of Christ by the necessity of torture or of punishment, yet discipline does not connive even at that necessity; because there is a higher necessity to dread denying and to undergo martyrdom, than to escape from suffering, and to render the homage required. In fact, an excuse of this sort overturns the entire essence of our sacrament, removing even the obstacle to voluntary sins; for it will be possible also to maintain that inclination is a necessity, as involving in it, forsooth, a sort of compulsion.” De Corona, 11.Hippolytus (c. 215 CE): “A soldier in the lower ranks shall kill no one. If ordered to do so, he shall not obey, and he shall not take an oath. If he does not want to comply with this directive, let him be dismissed [from the church].” The Apostolic Tradition, Canon 16, (ca. 215 CE.){Note: This was a widely used document having been translated and used in Latin, Greek, Ethiopic and Egyptian well into the fourth century]
Minucius Felix (writing c. 238-248 CE): “It is not right for us either to see or hear of a man being slain; and so careful are we (to abstain) from human blood, that we do not even touch the blood of eatable animals in (our) food. . . . Even though we refuse your official honours and purple, yet we do not consist of the lowest dregs of the population.” Octavius 30.6, 31.6

 

[bengal_fan]

2 more

Acta Sancti Maximiliani Martyris (c. 295 CE) narrates the martyrdom of Maximillian, a twenty-one year old Numidian Christian who was executed for refusing to serve in the military, martyrdom for which he was subsequently canonized.
“The Martyrdom of Marinus at Caesarea” recounts a similar episode in which a Christian soldier, about to be named a centurion, is challenged by another man about the legality of a Christian in this position. The solider is then warned by his bishop that he must make a choice: “[T]he bishop there, took him aside and conversed with him, and taking his hand led him into the church. And standing with him within, in the sanctuary, he raised his cloak a little, and pointed to the sword that hung by his side; and at the same time he placed before him the Scripture of the divine Gospels, and told him to choose which of the two he wished. And without hesitation he reached forth his right hand, and took the divine Scripture. “Hold fast then,” says Theotecnus [the bishop] to him, ‘hold fast to God, and strengthened by him mayest thou obtain what thou hast chosen, and go in peace.’ Immediately on his return the herald cried out calling him to the tribunal, for the appointed time was already completed. And standing before the tribunal, and manifesting greater zeal for the faith, immediately, as he was, he was led away and finished his course by death.” Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History 7.15Another episode of the martyrdom of a soldier can be found in Passio S. Cassiani, but this time the soldier recognizes outright he impropriety of his service, quits and is executed.
Clement of Alexandria: “We do not train women like Amazons to be manly in war, since we wish even the men to be peaceable.” Stromata 4.8.61

Origen: “To those who ask us whence we have come or whom we have (for) a leader, we say that we have come in accordance with the counsels of Jesus to cut down our warlike and arrogant swords of argument into ploughshares, and we convert into sickles the spears we formerly used in fighting. For we no longer take ‘sword against a nation,’ nor do we learn ‘any more to make war,’ having become sons of peace for the sake of Jesus, who is our leader, instead of (following) the ancestral (customs) in which we were strangers to the covenants.” Against Celsus 5.33
Origen: “If a revolt had been the cause of the Christians combining, and if they had derived their origin from the Jews, to whom it was allowed to take arms on behalf of their families, and to destroy their enemies, the Lawgiver of the Christians would not have altogether forbidden the destruction of man, teaching that the deed of daring on the part of his own disciples against a man, however unrighteous he be, is never right–for he did not deem it becoming to his own divine legislation to allow the destruction–of any man whatever.” Against Celsus 2.30
Lactantius (240—320 CE.) A transitional figure. Before Constantine: “It is not right for a just man to serve in the army since justice itself is his form of service. … It does not matter whether you kill a man with the sword or with a word since it is killing itself that is prohibited. And so there must be no exception to this command of God. Killing a human being whom God wills to be inviolable, is always wrong” (Divine Institutes 6.20.16-17).When Constantine comes to power: “Courage is good if you are fighting for your country, but it is evil if you are fighting against your country”(Epitome 61.3).Later, after Constantine’s rise re: the rest of the world not yet under Christian power: "On those who continue to afflict the just in other parts of the world that same omnipotent Father will wreak vengeance for their wrong doing” (Divine Institutes 1.1.14).

 

[bengal_fan]

ok i lied… now it’s 2 more

Arnobius (writing c 304-310 CE): “For since we–so large a force of men–have received (it) from his teachings and laws, that evil ought not to be repaid with evil, that it is better to endure a wrong than to inflict (it), to shed one’s own (blood) rather than stain one’s hands and conscience with the blood of another, the ungrateful world has long been receiving a benefit from Christ, through whom the madness of savagery has been softened, and has begun to withhold its hostile hands from the blood of a kindred creature. But if absolutely all . . . were willing to lend an ear for a little while to his healthful and peaceful decrees, and would not, swollen with pride and arrogance, trust to their own senses rather than to his admonitions, the whole world would long ago have turned the uses of iron to milder works and be living in the softest tranquility, and would have come together in healthy concord without breaking the sanctions of treaties.” Adversus Nationes 1.6

Didaskalia Apostolorum gives some clues as to the understanding that ante-Nicene Christians had of the government and hence was thus undoubtedly a large part of why they refused to serve in the military: “It is very high praise for a Christian to have no evil dispute with anyone: but if, through the work of an enemy, temptation arises against anyone, let him try earnestly to be freed from him, even though he has to suffer some harm; only let him not go to the judgment of the gentiles. . . . Let not the gentiles know of your legal disputes; and do not accept evidence from them against yourselves: nor in your turn prefer suits in their courts.” 2.45.1, 2.46.1

Similarly an early fourth century synod excludes Christian magistrates from the community’s life: “Resolved, that it be laid down that a (Christian) magistrate, during the one year in which he holds the office of duumvir, should keep himself away from the church.” Canons of the Synod of Illiberis 56 (Elvira, in southern Spain) (c. 300 CE.)

 

[bengal_fan]

now it’s the last one!!

Cf. the negative argument found in Celsus cited in Origen, who complains that if everyone did as the Christians did in refusing to participate in the affairs of government then the affairs of the Emperor would simply fall into the hands of barbarians. “ ‘For if all were to do the same as you, there would be nothing to prevent his being left in utter solitude and desertion, and the affairs of the earth would fall into the hands of the wildest and most lawless barbarians; and then there would no longer remain among men any of the glory of your religion or of the true wisdom.’” Against Celsus 8:68

Origen’s response to Celsus’ charge: “But Celsus urges us also to (take part in) govern(ing) the country, seeing that this has to be done for the sake of the safety of the laws and of piety. But we, knowing in each state another organization of a ‘country’–(an organization) founded by the Word of God–exhort those who are powerful in speech and who lead a wholesome (moral) life to rule over churches, not accepting those who are fond of ruling, but constraining those who through (their) great modesty are unwilling rashly to accept the public charge of the Church of God. . . . And (it is) not (for the sake of) escaping from the public services of life that Christians shun such things, but (because they are) reserving themselves for a diviner and more necessary service, (namely that) of (the) Church of God, both necessarily and rightly taking the lead for the salvation of men, and having taken charge of all–of those within (the Church), in order that they may daily live better (lives), and of those who are apparently without, in order that they may become (engaged) in the serious words and works of piety, and thus, truly worshipping God and training as many as they have power to, may be mingled with the Word of God and the divine Law and may thus be united to the God who is over all through the Son of God–Word and Wisdom and Truth and Righteousness–who unites to Him every one who is bent on living in all things according to (the will of) God.” Against Celsus, 8.75.
Tertullian, on government service: “And so let us grant that it is possible for any one to succeed in moving, in whatsoever office, under the mere name of the office, neither sacrificing nor lending his authority to sacrifices; not farming out victims; not assigning to others the care of temples; not looking after their tributes; not giving spectacles at his own or the public charge, or presiding over the giving them; making proclamation or edict for no solemnity; not even taking oaths: moreover (what comes under the head of power), neither sitting in judgment on any one’s life or character, for you might bear with his judging about money; neither condemning nor fore-condemning; binding no one, imprisoning or torturing no one-if it is credible that all this is possible.” On Idolatry 17

W.H.C Frend: As late as third century, “No one raised the point that the Christian magistrate might contribute by a sense of justice and mercy to the well-being of his fellow citizens.” Rise of Christianity, 420.

Augustine, father of Christian just war tradition, rejects killing in an individual’s self-defense: “It might be shown that, though Moses slew the Egyptian, without being commanded by God, the action was divinely permitted, as, from the prophetic character of Moses, it prefigured something in the future. Now however, I do not use this argument, but view the action as having no symbolical meaning. In the light, then, of the eternal law, it was wrong for one who had no legal authority to kill the man, even though he was a bad character, besides being the aggressor.” Contra Faustus 22.70. “As to killing others in order to defend one’s own life, I do not approve of this, unless one happen to be a soldier or public functionary acting, not for himself, but in defence of others or of the city in which he resides, if he act according to the commission lawfully given him, and in the manner becoming his office.” Epistles 47.5.

 

[mark_a]

in 300 a.d. (or c.e. depending on where you are coming from) it was an excommunicable offense to:

1. join the military
2. use violence for the purpose of war
3. use violence for the purpose to defend some one else
4. use violence for the purpose to defend yourself

in other words, it was never permitted for some one to fight back in any case within Christianity for at least the first 300 years.

by 450 a.d. ONLY Christians were permitted to be in the military (of course we know that this has to do with the influence of the government upon the church… however…).

what theological reasons does the church have for changing its stance on the use of force? how does augustine’s just war doctrine not contradict the 300 years of complete pacifism the church held to (even unto death under penalty of excommunication)?

something i have been wondering lately.

Maybe they really were all Jehovah’s witnesses!

 

[Orionthehunter]

your OP states the Church forbade these activities.
your response states individual Christians refused to participate in these activities.
which is it?
if you don’t give the relevant citations there is really no way to give an informed answer.

come on, potato potatoe.

i gave relevant sources. this isn’t a doctoral dissertation here. if you don’t believe me, don’t acknowlege. if you want to research it, do that as well. look at the books i posted (the placher one is just a collection of ECF writings). go to the websites that allow you to read many of the ECFs and search war, violence, self-defense. i stand by my statement.

i have time right now to post just one against capital punishment:

Athenagoras:
“For when they know that we cannot endure even to see a man put to death, though justly; who them can accuse us of murder of cannibalism?”
From: A Plea for the Christians

It is a significant distinction. Did they refuse to do these because they were prohibited under threat of excommunication or by their prudential judgment?

in 300 a.d. (or c.e. depending on where you are coming from) it was an excommunicable offense to:

1. join the military
2. use violence for the purpose of war
3. use violence for the purpose to defend some one else
4. use violence for the purpose to defend yourself

in other words, it was never permitted for some one to fight back in any case within Christianity for at least the first 300 years.

by 450 a.d. ONLY Christians were permitted to be in the military (of course we know that this has to do with the influence of the government upon the church… however…).

what theological reasons does the church have for changing its stance on the use of force? how does augustine’s just war doctrine not contradict the 300 years of complete pacifism the church held to (even unto death under penalty of excommunication)?

something i have been wondering lately.

A couple of practical realities prior to the recognition of freedom to be a Christian was granted by Constatine.

Any armies were defacto enforcers of Christian oppressors. If the US suppressed my faith, I would refuse to defend our nation.

All wars were defacto expansions of a national government that oppressed Christians.

With regard to the defense of the innocent or self-defense, I need to see that it was prohibited and not an exercise of prudential judgment. Furthermore, if the defense of the innocent or self-defense was in reaction to governmental enforcers, it could have been a discipline necessary to protect the greater Christian community. It may have been better to be an individual martyr than to jeopardize the entire community.

In short, I don’t think it coincidental that the timing you reference coincides with the allowing of Religious freedom by the Roman Empire.

 

[bengal_fan]

It is a significant distinction. Did they refuse to do these because they were prohibited under threat of excommunication or by their prudential judgment?

A couple of practical realities prior to the recognition of freedom to be a Christian was granted by Constatine.

Any armies were defacto enforcers of Christian oppressors. If the US suppressed my faith, I would refuse to defend our nation.

All wars were defacto expansions of a national government that oppressed Christians.

With regard to the defense of the innocent or self-defense, I need to see that it was prohibited and not an exercise of prudential judgment. Furthermore, if the defense of the innocent or self-defense was in reaction to governmental enforcers, it could have been a discipline necessary to protect the greater Christian community. It may have been better to be an individual martyr than to jeopardize the entire community.

i can understand your logic. i might not agree with it, but i can understand it. the only problem i see is that the early church used Jesus’ words, “whoever lives by the sword will die by the sword” and “turn the other cheek” literally. if he only meant until the Christians were in power then i could agree.

also, they seemed to believe in the value of every human life and not valuing one above another. or even 100 over 1.

In short, I don’t think it coincidental that the timing you reference coincides with the allowing of Religious freedom by the Roman Empire.

the problem here is the bolded. that’s not exactly what happened. rome granted freedom but made Christianity the official religion. Christianity, within just a few years, used that power to persecute the other religions.

i am not here to argue per se. i really was asking the question. historically speaking, the church changed its view on violence, war, and self-defense. i am wondering why. orion provided one answer and i appreciate it.

 

[manualman]

Offhand, I’d suspect the difference is one of understanding the scope and duration of the mission of the Church. The apostles and extremely early fathers had a sense that Christ’s return was imminent.

Read in Acts how the very early christians sold all their possessions and lived communally off the proceeds. This reflects the mistaken belief (not a doctrinal teaching, mind you) that Jesus would be coming back to end the world as they knew it within a matter of weeks, maybe months at worst.

As it dawned on people that Jesus never SAID how long he’d be in returning, they re-evaluated their approach.

Same may be true with defensive violence and just war theory. When christians expected Christ to return at any moment, they couldn’t reconcile any redeeming value in violence of any sort. When it became clear that the Church might have a LONG mission ahead, the reality that civilization and the rule of law needs occasional defense in order to avoid long term human suffering, the need re-examine what Jesus REALLY said (and what it meant) became apparent.

 

[CHCatholic]

Is it me, or does turn the other cheek refer more to retaliation than self defense? As in not holding a grudge? Because to me, not defending yourself seems sinful.

 

[CathFaith1]

something i have been wondering lately.

Just thought I’d note, I did see this subject discussed on another forum very interesting notes there.

 

[Swan]

i can understand your logic. i might not agree with it, but i can understand it. the only problem i see is that the early church used Jesus’ words, “whoever lives by the sword will die by the sword” and “turn the other cheek” literally. if he only meant until the Christians were in power then i could agree.
also, they seemed to believe in the value of every human life and not valuing one above another. or even 100 over 1.
the problem here is the bolded. that’s not exactly what happened. rome granted freedom but made Christianity the official religion. Christianity, within just a few years, used that power to persecute the other religions.
i am not here to argue per se. i really was asking the question. historically speaking, the church changed its view on violence, war, and self-defense. i am wondering why. orion provided one answer and i appreciate it.

I’m not here to argue either and I agree with the above; even a monk/priest I know pointed out how the first thing the Christians did once they were legal was start persecuting others which seems to demonstrate that they were unclear on the concept, IMO. Also, IMO, Jesus did mean “no violence” - love your enemies is not ambiguous. I believe Jesus was a pacifist and taught pacifism. He told us not to be afraid of losing our life but only our soul. But this isn’t real practical if you’re going to have political power, as the Church did post Constantine. I know a lot of people disagree, but this is just my opinion (and, again, I don’t want to argue about it).

 

[CathFaith1]

Also, IMO, Jesus did mean “no violence” - love your enemies is not ambiguous. I believe Jesus was a pacifist and taught pacifism.

Jesus didn’t teach pacifism to the centurion.

8 The centurion said in reply, "Lord, I am not worthy to have you enter under my roof; only say the word and my servant will be healed.

9 For I too am a person subject to authority, with soldiers subject to me. And I say to one, ‘Go,’ and he goes; and to another, ‘Come here,’ and he comes; and to my slave, ‘Do this,’ and he does it."

10 When Jesus heard this, he was amazed and said to those following him, “Amen, I say to you, in no one in Israel have I found such faith.”

Matt 8

Jesus did teach accountability.

 

[bengal_fan]

Jesus didn’t teach pacifism to the centurion…
Jesus did teach accountability.

that’s because that wasn’t the subject of the conversation. faith was the subject and Jesus used the event to discuss that.

many, many times Jesus dealt with what our response should be to aggressors. it was always pacifism. the only one Jesus seems to give permission to use force to is Himself when He says He came not to bring peace but a sword. of course, He is speaking of the division that will come into the world because of God. some will reject, others will accept and there will be conflict. but we must fall back on what He pushes as believers’ response to aggression… peace, love, and a willingness to suffer.