Some more thoughts, these on the topic of God, the Bible and peacemaking:
In the Bible we see Jesus in at least two ways: Jesus as the man who walked amongst us and Jesus as part of who God is.
It is, of course, the same Jesus and yet God has different roles God's playing in Jesus. Understand that: Jesus as portrayed in the Gospels may act differently than you see God portrayed in other places throughout the Bible.
In Jesus the man-god who walked amongst us, we have Jesus as role model, as shepherd, as example. THIS Jesus is our standard for how to live.
God is not our standard in that we are NOT to try to make ourselves into little gods. God's role is different than ours.
But Jesus came to show us how to live, Jesus came to teach us The Way.
1 Peter 2 tells us:
For to this you have been called, because Christ also suffered for you, leaving you an example that you should follow in his footsteps.
"He committed no sin, and no deceit was found in his mouth." When he was insulted, he returned no insult; when he suffered, he did not threaten; instead, he handed himself over to the one who judges justly.
God is the one who deals justly. It is God's to avenge. It is God's to decide who lives and who dies. THAT is God’s role, not humanity’s.
Jesus left us an example. NOT “how to be little gods,” but rather how to be whole humans. "To be perfect as God is perfect," meaning NOT that we should be like God making God-like decisions of life and death, but rather that we are to be completely whole human beings, living as we were designed to live.
And how is that? How do we know how to live?
Jesus. Jesus and our God-given reasoning.
Jesus the man-god who walked amongst us, teaching us to live peaceably. Teaching us NOT to kill our enemies but to love them. Teaching us to overcome evil with good.
And again, I would point out that it is this Jesus-man whom we've been commanded to obey and in whose steps we are to follow. We are told specifically in the book of Romans, “Beloved, do not look for revenge but leave room for the wrath; for it is written, ‘Vengeance is mine, I will repay, says the Lord.’”
NOWHERE in the Bible do we have commands given to us to "go and kill those sinners." In ZERO places in the Bible are we thus commanded.
But we are commanded to love our enemies. To overcome evil with good.
Given that, on what possible basis would we break the command that we've been given in order to act out a command that we have NOT been given (ie, Kill Enemies – even be willing to kill their children)? Rather, we have been told specifically, "Vengeance is MINE, saith the Lord"?
Yes, God does appear to tell some Israelis a relatively few times to go and kill those people. But God has not told US to do so. We have no commands to do such in all of the Bible. Not one.
If we're going to start implying commands from examples in the Bible (which is what the violence-as-solution folk are doing), then shall I take it as a command that I should go and marry a prostitute (as Hosea did)? Shall I go throughout Louisville and kill all the firstborn males (as the Death Angel did in Egypt)?
There are examples in the Bible where it appears that God is telling people to kill children. Shall we do this? When shall we do it? When we hear voices telling us to kill children? When our gov’t tells us it’s time to kill children?
Do you see the horrifying problem with implying commands or license from actions that happen in the OT when no such command exists for you and for me?
145 comments:
Dan,
Your stance is the "light's better here" ploy. A fellow sees the other fellow searching frantically under the street lamp at night and asks him what's amiss.
"I dropped my car keys and can't get home and I'm trying to find them."
"So you dropped them right here, did you?"
"No, I lost them about a block down the street."
"Then why are you looking here instead of there?"
"Because the light's better here!"
Just like that your theology seems to start from modern day anti-war pacifism and then look about in the Bible to find a justification for it. Why do we ignore all the places in the Bible where God commands infanticide and genocide and utterly smiting with the edge of the sword? Simple, the light's better here in these other passages!
Now let's suppose I just got off the spaceship from Mars (which I've actually been accused of often enough) and you give me a Bible. I tell you I am going to read it alone and so give my the guidelines of when I'm supposed to know when something was being said to the audience at that time and is not intended for me to follow, and when it is a direct command for me to follow.
I know well the old dodge that 'it depends.' You have to take the Bible as whole and piece together a coherent Gestalt out of it.
But that just leads us right back to the street lamp of our choice, beginning with our biases and 'druthers and sifting through the Bible to find support for it while explaining away the rest.
I don't think so, E. You have to do that if you accept the Bible as to be taken perfectly literal. If, like me, you don't necessarily think every line is as valid as any other line, then I don't think your argument holds up.
BUT even for those who'd like to try to make that case, the question I'm asking them still remains: God never commands us (Dan, Eleutheros, Al Mohler...) to kill anyone. Instead, we are commanded to follow Jesus' example on earth. We are to love our neighbors. We are to love our enemies. We certainly aren't to oppress or kill the least of these.
EVEN IF you accept the OT passages as to be a literal representation of God, then what you have in that case is God telling some people a few times in the OT to go and kill some people.
God has not told us to do that anywhere. And anyone who says today that he heard God saying such a thing is to be doubted.
Where am I mistaken?
"I don't think so, E. You have to do that if you accept the Bible as to be taken perfectly literal. If, like me, you don't necessarily think every line is as valid as any other line, then I don't think your argument holds up."
But by what standard are you deciding the relative value of each line? You seem to be answering E. by using the exact method he's criticizing. And it's been a while since I've looked at the OT, but I seem to recall what by my standards is quite a bit off commanding to kill quite a lot of people. Whole populations sometimes...
Where AREN'T you mistaken in this comment, E? If Dan only gets pacifism out of Scripture because he starts with a modern day version, then why was the Christian Church entirely pacifist for the first 250 years and nearly entirely pacifist until the 4th C.? Did all those early Christians start with modern day pacifism, too?
"But by what standard are you deciding the relative value of each line?"
By our God-given reason, is the ultimate, if somewhat unsatisfactory, answer. This is how we all ultimately our interpreting the Bible, those who say they take it literally as well as those who know we don't.
I, or Billy Graham or whoever, look at the Bible and try to find the truth therein. We might have some methods that we try to use to be more objective, but it is not measurable, it is subjective, no matter how much we'd like to say it's just a matter of what God says. Period.
Having said that, one of the things I learned growing up Southern Baptist, is a bit of a hierarchy for reading and interpreting the Bible. Some of those rules might be:
1. We interpret the individual through the whole. Finding one verse that seems to say "kill babies" doesn't hold fast if the rest of the Bible disagrees with that phrase.
2. We interpret the whole through the criterion of Jesus. If I have an example of hating a neighbor in the OT, we have Jesus' words telling us to Love our neighbor.
I'm a Christ-ian and ultimately, I look to the teachings of Jesus as my best guidelines.
3. We consider context, times, culture as we read the Bible.
4. We affirm and embrace what is known as the rule of love. Jesus and elsewhere in the Bible (and in practically every other belief system) tells us that the Golden Rule is the bottom line. Do unto others. Love your neighbor as yourself.
If our interpretation seems out of whack with the Golden Rule, we ought to reconsider our interpretation.
For starters...
Michael:"then why was the Christian Church entirely pacifist for the first 250 years and nearly entirely pacifist until the 4th C.? Did all those early Christians start with modern day pacifism, too?"
Michael, I know you to be (as Darby O'Gill says to King Brian in Disney's Darby O'Gill and the Little People) a "knowledgeable man" so I will cut to the chase and present my answer frankly, knowing you are familiar with what I say and you knowing that I am likely to call anything other than fact in the matter on the carpet. Fair?
Your first 250 years of Christianity are pure mythology and conjecture. There are no extant verifiable copies of any Christian literature before the 4th century except inconclusive bits and scraps that may or may not predate 300 C.E.
For those readers who are not familiar with this, although I am sure Michael is, there is no such thing as a carbon date test (or such) to tell whether a bit of parchment or papyrus is from the fifth century or the first century (C.E. that is). We rely entirely on the text and the style of writing and type of material to date ancient documents.
It would be like going to one of those Olde West theme parks and having your picture taken for the fake wanted poster which uses that old pointy type to make it look as if it were printed in 1880. Two thousand years from now a paleographist might not be able to tell whether it was a real poster dating from 1880 or one made 130 years later but done to look like it was made earlier. History and religions are full of such documents.
What we have describing the activities of the first three centuries of the church are the writings of the church fathers. Extant copies of their works date from centuries later and are attributed to people who, the story goes, lived in those times. Of direct evidence we have, alas, none.
Now, of course, there has always been a, as it were, militantly pacifist element in the Christian religion from at least the fifth century C.E. This only proves to emphasize that Christianity has always lent itself to the Lego(tm) effect where you can choose from the great variety and diversity of the pieces in the box and build whatever you like. After all, during actual documented history of the church (from the beginning of the 4th century C.E.) along side the pacifist there have been militants, imperialists, bigots, and genocidal maniacs all dipping into the same box of Legos the pacifist have used.
Dan:"But by what standard are you deciding the relative value of each line?"
David answered this quite well and accurately enough. My objections remain. I could still take all your criteria and come to the conclusion that Jesus wants us to bomb Iraq. For example:
If our interpretation seems out of whack with the Golden Rule, we ought to reconsider our interpretation.
How many times have I heard in Christian sermons to the effect that it would be better to be dead than in opposition to God. So if, God, Heaven, and all the Saints and Apostles forbid, I should find myself to be a godless, heathen Mohamedean, then what is it I would "have others do unto me"? Why, it's clear that I'd be better off dead than in opposition to God's will so what I would really have them do (in my heart of hearts) is to bomb me out of existence.
Dan,
Thanks for the link. In a tongue-in-cheek way, I feel a little like the man in one of Mark Twain's novel who was tar and feathered and ran out of town on a rail. He said, "If it had not been for the honor of it, I'd really rather not have gone through it."
A question: Is it a sin to be a soldier that is willing to fight for his country - even kill terrorists and other villains?
Everything Eleutheros says about dating documents, except for the lack of carbon-14 is total crap. We date things quite accurately through paper analysis, ink-types, writing styles, etc. And, in fact, we have quite a large collection of Christian documents from the 1st and 2nd centuries. (In fact, we have documents that are much earlier from Judaism.)
Historians know more about the early church than about many movements centuries later. We don't just have fragments of quotes of 1st and 2nd C. authors. We have many early copies of their writings.
And what I said about the first 250 years of Christianity is NOT a myth. You can find this out in just about any standard history of the times. Pacifist Christianity not starting until the 5th C? Hardly. That post-Constantinian period is the beginning of the DECLINE of Christian pacifism and the embrace of a religion of empire.
These things are so well known that your denial of them is the equivalent of Turkey's denial of the Armenian genocide or of those who believe that the moon landings were faked in a Hollywood studio.
I think you've been chewing on too many weeds found on your farm, dude. For those interested, here are just a few of the standard references on this topic: C. J. Cadoux, The Early Christian Attitude To War(Seabury, 1982; Orig. published in 1919); Jean-Michel Hornus, It is Not Lawful for Me to Fight: Early Christian Attitudes Toward War, Violence, and the State (Herald Press, 1980; French original, 1960); Roland Bainton, Christian Attitudes Toward War and Peace: A Historical Study and Critical Re-evaluation (Abingdon Press, 1960); Louis J. Swift, The Early Church Fathers on War and Military Service (Michael Glazier, 1983).
As for Dan's point about how one interprets Scripture, Willard M. Swartley shows in his classic, Slavery, Sabbath, War, and Women: Case Issues in Biblical Interpretation (Herald Press, 1983) that those who defended slavery and the oppression of women use the same approach to biblical interpretation as those who defend war--and vice versa.
This comment has been removed by the author.
"Everything Eleutheros says about dating documents, except for the lack of carbon-14 is total crap...I think you've been chewing on too many weeds found on your farm, dude."
Michael, I suspect you're just joking in your disagreeing with Eleutheros (that is, you disagree, but your sort of harsh rebuke is jocular), but just to be clear, be kind to one another here, please.
But thanks, Michael, for the useful info.
Eleutheros said:
"How many times have I heard in Christian sermons to the effect that it would be better to be dead than in opposition to God."
The case can be made, I suppose. BUT, I think most relatively rational people (religious folk included) recognize that killing another person (or people) is not a way to demonstrate love.
Larry asked:
A question: Is it a sin to be a soldier that is willing to fight for his country - even kill terrorists and other villains?
That's a good question and one we ought to be asking.
One way of responding is to apply the Golden Rule (Eleutheros' objections notwithstanding): Would we think it a sin for German Christian to be willing to kill those he perceived to be a villain in WWII? Would we want those in or near Iraq who perceive us our soldiers in Iraq to be terrorists, would we think it a wrong to kill our soldiers?
In both cases, I think we'd object to the killing.
Now, I'm not as hardheaded as I come across most of the time. I'm willing to admit Gray Areas.
Is it a sin to choose abortion in the case where the child or mother may be seriously ill or is it a medical decision? Is it a sin to kill the person we perceive to be a terrorist or is it the best decision in a bad situation?
I'm willing to admit that it can be difficult to say. If there were a monster going around spitting fireballs of destruction at an orphanage and the ONLY way of stopping the monster was to kill it, I'd likely feel justified in killing the monster.
But people aren't monsters. Rarely if ever are we limited to either killing a person who's killing or letting them go on killing. Rarely if ever in modern war can we engage in it without making the decision that we're going to kill some innocent bystanders along the way.
I'm not willing to say that it's okay to kill innocent bystanders. I'd like to start with that question, then move on to what to do about the "terrorists and villains:" Are we willing to say that it is always wrong to kill innocent people?
Dan,
Wars always end up killing innocent people. Battles are not fought in football type stadiums where the action can be contained.
So, that being said, is it a sin for a soldier to be willing to fight for his country in a war, killing terrorists? And also knowing that innocent people will be killed?
Larry, I don't know but that it might be possible that you and I have different thoughts on what constitutes a sin (or maybe not - let's see...).
One biblical concept of the notion of sin is to fail to measure up to a standard or to miss the mark, as an arrow falling short of a target.
Perhaps the more common concept of sin is something that's just wrong.
In either case, I think it is just wrong to kill innocent people. I think when we kill innocent people, we are failing to measure up to a Godly standard.
So, by those definitions, yes, I - along with the historic Peace Churches and other peace churches and faith traditions - think that for Christians to participate in war is a sin.
You?
Do you think that participating in a war that you know will kill innocent people is NOT a sin?
Would it be a sin for you to drop a bomb on a church building and destroy a whole city of men, women and children so that some perceived "greater good" might be accomplished?
Dan,
I believe sins are transgressions which must be forgiven by the Father through the bloos of Christ. And usually, the person who has sinned has to go to the people he has sinned against and ask forgiveness,
So, are we on the same page when you and the peace churches believe it is a sin to participate in war?
Dialog includes good communication, right?
Should have said blood of Christ not bloos.
I apologize for the tone of my reply to Eleutheros, but I was kind of shocked at the level of misinformation.
As to the question of whether or not it is a sin to kill in war, I can say that most of the early church judged that it was. Even after Constantine forcibly baptized his army and made Christianity legal, we find Christian catechisms that ban soldiers who have shed blood from Communion (Holy Eucharist, the Lord's Supper--choose your term) until they have done penance: Some Eastern provinces made this ban for 7 years while the more liberal West only forbade soldiers who had shed blood to abstain for 3 years.
Speaking more personally, I tend to look at this in terms of how much knowledge the person had. If person X has never been told by his or her church that killing is wrong (even in war) and joins the military with its blessing, I would hold the church more culpable than X--provided that X tried to avoid civilian deaths, etc. If, however, Y is raised in a Christian pacifist home and church and rejects this to join the military, then I would say that Y is "sinning with a high hand" and is more culpable than if s/he joined in ignorance.
My perspective is, like most people's, shaped by my experience. I come from a military family and joined the army at 17 (graduated high school early). But while in the army, I discovered the nonviolence of Jesus and became a conscientious objector (not without resistance on the part of the military!) and was honorably discharged as a C.O. That was in 1983. Since that time, I have been trying serve in the "army that sheds no blood," and work for peace.
But I don't spend much time condemning the average soldier (sailor, marine, airman, etc.), but rather in trying to convince them of a better Way. (The civilian leaders that send them off to kill, I do condemn, but them also I mostly want to show a different Way.)
The question about sin asked about "for my country." But, for Christians, our first loyalty is to Jesus. We cannot be "patriotic" in any extreme sense. All nations are flawed and fleeting and our primary citizenship is in the Kingdom of God. The incredible shame of post-Constantinian Christianity is that most of the time Christians in one army have been shooting at Christians in another army--visible proof of misplaced loyalties since they were clearly placing their nations ahead of their common membership in the Christian Church which is composed of folk "from every tribe and nation."
"I tend to look at this in terms of how much knowledge the person had. If person X has never been told by his or her church that killing is wrong (even in war) and joins the military with its blessing, I would hold the church more culpable"
Well-reasoned answer, Michael.
And yes, Larry, if you define sin as transgression, then certainly those who kill innocent people - rather in war or otherwise - are committing a transgression against them.
But you haven't answered my question - let's play fair...
Are you saying that killing innocent people in war time is NOT a sinful act, a transgression against those innocent people, a failure to measure up to how we're supposed to live?
And, a "I'm not sure," "It's hard to say," or even "Depends" is an acceptable answer if that's what you think.
Dan,
Be patient. I'm on quest for truth.
Now, that I've discerned what you believe and what the peace churches believe.
John the Baptist had something from the womb that Jesus did not have. He had the Holy Spirit. And Jesus said that he was the greatest of prophets. (Move over Elijah, Jeremiah, Daniel and Isaiah.) In addition, John was the man who Jesus went to for His baptism. Great credentials, right?
In Luke 3:14, John was asked by Roman soldiers, "And what shall we do?"
Why didn't John say to them,"Leave the army, you're a bunch of sinners.”
Instead, he said, "Don’t extort money or make false accusations. And be content with your pay.”
Guess what? Part of the Roman soldiers' pay came from battle spoils. And yet, John said nothing about that.
Nor did Jesus ever say that being a soldier was a sin. And Jesus was even willing to go to a centurion's house.
So, it looks like your theories have some holes in them.
Jesus left us an example. NOT “how to be little gods,” but rather how to be whole humans. "To be perfect as God is perfect," meaning NOT that we should be like God making God-like decisions of life and death, but rather that we are to be completely whole human beings, living as we were designed to live.
And how is that? How do we know how to live?
Jesus. Jesus and our God-given reasoning.
Well, these teachings of Jesus -- they're really just mythologizing by the early church, placed upon some obscure Palestinian prophet. Just like the Virgin Birth, Resurrection, and miracle stories.
"Cite, by manuscript name, an extant copy of a patristic writing reliably dated before the fourth century."
I'll pass on this exercise, as I'm not knowledgeable enough on the topic to contribute helpfully.
But for my belief system, I don't need that particular proof.
And in answer to John's prior comment ("hey're really just mythologizing by the early church, placed upon some obscure Palestinian prophet. Just like the Virgin Birth, Resurrection, and miracle stories" and in fitting with this, let me point to my earlier response: We who call ourselves Christians look to the teachings of Jesus as we find them in the Bible AND we rely upon our God-given reason.
I can look at those teachings identified as Jesus' and find great Truth to them. Truth that resonates with Reason.
Now suppose Eleutheros or someone could prove that those teachings were just made up, or that the Early Church wasn't pacifistic as I've heard and as I find them to be represented in the NT (and, of course, no one can prove that as it's difficult if not impossible to prove a negative), I still find those teachings to be True.
Just as Aesop's Fables have great truths in them and Jesus' parables have great truths in them and the Twilight Zone had great truths within it. It is the Truths with which I'm concerned over the Facts.
It is the Truths found within Jesus' teachings that cause me to identify myself as a follower of Jesus, not the unprovable "fact" that he was born of a virgin, nor the unprovable "fact" that God can only be thought of in terms of a Triune God, nor even the fact, proven or not, that the early church was populated by those who believed in the Peacemaking Truths that Jesus taught.
And I don't think that this is really afield from the original point. I'm saying I believe in the Truth taught in the Bible that we ought to overcome evil with good, and I believe in the efficacy of that truth over the efficacy and morality that we ought to overcome evil by engaging in that same evil.
And forgive me if I'm repeating myself, but I find it amazing how difficult it seems to be to get a bunch of decent human beings as are gathered here in this small cloud of witnesses to come out in support of the modest proposal that we ought not kill innocent people.
Dan:"but I find it amazing how difficult it seems to be to get a bunch of decent human beings as are gathered here in this small cloud of witnesses to come out in support of the modest proposal that we ought not kill innocent people."
You've missed your calling, Dan. Should have been on Madison Avenue. Reducing something to such simplistic terms then wrapping it in warm hugs and bunny rabbits makes it sound as if it is a no-brainer.
Let me try my hand at it. Can we not agree that it's wrong to extort money from people using the pretense that a higher authority has asked and urged the person to give the money? Yes? Then we've got to stop passing the offering plate at church.
Can we agree that it's wrong isolate an infant from its mother and feed it chemically processed bean residue as its only food? Yes? Then daycare centers and infant formula must be done away with.
Word your posit carefully enough and ignore all the other factors and you can make anything appear to be immoral.
The other source of you difficulty in obtaining a consensus is that the proposition isn't presented as universally logical and moral, but rather God told you so. So, if we may so assume, God's message is universal, if God told you that He must needs be telling us all that. It is now no longer a matter of our own pure free will and reason, but rather what God told Dan was the truth.
Being, as you are, Dan, a skeptic about the unmixed blessing of automobiles, you are probably quick to pick up on the fact that in order to continue supplying motor fuel to Hummers and SUV's, we are pricing food out of the reach of the poor of the world. That's an easy reach for you, you'd rather give up the iron chariot at any rate, no? The moral issue is the same, dead is dead. In fact being obliterated by a bomb is far more merciful than starving to death and watching you family starve.
And yet cars are only the tip of the iceberg. Every person who is materially idle and does not produce something adds to the problem and makes the very war you are talking about necessary directly because of their idleness.
Periodically on your blog and regularly on other blogs to which you link (esp. Michael's) there are men in suits, knots of men in suits, standing around idle being name dropped and idolized as this or that influential theologian or peacenik. Yet just as surely as the airman with his hand on the bomb release, these people's idleness necessitates the starvation and collateral damage necessary to ensure that the society in which they live can afford to supply them with house, food, car, suit, and audience all for just pontificating about this or that.
"The other source of you difficulty in obtaining a consensus is that the proposition isn't presented as universally logical and moral, but rather God told you so."
To be fair, I did say that these two posts were specifically directed more towards our Biblical "Literalists" friends, and so I've made arguments from a biblical grounds that I would hope would appeal to them where they're at in their particular stage of life.
I haven't especially tried to make the logical case here, although I think it fairly easy to do.
I think the Golden Rule - and I know your objections to it - is a fairly logical self-evident Rule. That's not an appeal to "Believe this because God said so," but rather an appeal to logic, it seems to me.
Don't treat others in a way that you wouldn't want to be treated.
Most rational people don't want to be killed for doing nothing.
What's not logical about that?
Dan:"think the Golden Rule - and I know your objections to it - is a fairly logical self-evident Rule. ....
What's not logical about that?"
It is logical and it works, but as I and many have pointed out, it ONLY works when both parties subscribe to the same cultural and moral paradigm.
-----------------
It appears to me that you don't really get all that much disagreement from the true believers about your stance. You can indeed find in the Bible a basis for what you are saying. It's the exclusivity that gets them, says I. It's the notion that the pacifist teachings of the Bible completely outweigh, outdistance, suppress, and nullify all the other parts. That is, let's say that the Bible teaches a doctrine of peace. But does it follow that it teaches a doctrine of peace at any price?
Only an insane person eschews peace. No, I'm not going to back that up with references mundane nor divine. Just my observation. We pay a price for war, but then again we pay a price for peace. It is upon each of us to reach into our purse, shake out the shekels of our lives, and decide which we are going to purchase therewith.
Ah, but it's a tricksty market full of shrewd and cunning merchants. Package labels are not to be trusted. The Islamic jihadist will tell us that converting to Islam (and killing the infidel) will bring us peace. I ain't buying! My life's shekels were too hard come by to be fooled by such a huckster.
Like that, to roll over fat and lazy and stand about in front of cameras at this or that peace convention bedonned in a peacenik suit with drink in hand and call that the work of peace .... I ain't buying that either.
There is no peace without wisdom
There is no wisdom but in submission to the gods
Big words are always punished
And foolish men in old age learn to be wise.
(From Sophocles)
"It appears to me that you don't really get all that much disagreement from the true believers about your stance. You can indeed find in the Bible a basis for what you are saying. It's the exclusivity that gets them, says I."
Eleutheros - well said and right on.
The posting at Larry Who where Dan has taken many of the above statements was on the following quote: "The only people who don’t think Jesus was a pacifist are Christians." -Gandhi.
So, is Jesus a pacifist?
The no-brainer answer to this question: Sometimes Jesus acts as the Prince of Peace (a pacifist). Sometimes He acts as the Man of War (Faithful and True). Sometimes He is the Judge. And sometimes He acts as one of the many other character sides He is.
But after 62 comments, the answer Dan still hangs on to is an absolute peace loving Jesus wrapped in warm hugs and bunny rabbits. (as per E)
This is only a hypothesis but I believe that Dan knows if he ever gives in a little He knows His "house of cards" theories will crumble.
That's just my hypothesis.
To be more accurate, Larry (and reflecting what I've actually said here): I have maintained that Jesus on Earth - Jesus the man who lived here for 33 years before being killed by the religious and a military-state - THAT Jesus consistently preached peacemaking, as recorded in the Gospels.
If you wish to disprove me it's simple: Feel free to point to the first line where Jesus in the Gospels advocates violence-as-solution. I can easily point to you to the verses which we're all aware of where Jesus and his followers taught peacemaking and non-violence, but you can't point to a single verse where Jesus advocates violence because it doesn't exist in the Gospels, nor the epistles of the followers who established the Early Church.
As I've stated, you can make the case that there are EXAMPLES where God in the Bible used violence and asked some specific people to use violence (killing men, women, babies and donkeys, for starters).
But in the WHOLE BIBLE, you can't point to a single verse where God commands US to kill our enemies.
If I'm wrong, all you need to do is point to such verses.
I'm guessing no one will be pointing to any verses. Since they don't really exist anywhere in the Bible...
At least with you Larry, after 62 comments, you have yet to offer such. For the most part, you still refuse to answer the basic question: Is it always wrong to kill babies?
And I know that you have said, Eleutheros, "It's the exclusivity that gets them, says I. It's the notion that the pacifist teachings of the Bible completely outweigh, outdistance, suppress, and nullify all the other parts."
But I am of the mind that some things can be fairly exclusively said. Certainly that is the opinion of our biblical literalists out there, who love to see things in black and white. I'm saying it's black and white: It's always a wrong to kill babies and I think we should be able to agree with at least that starting point.
E said:
"It [the Golden Rule] is logical and it works, but as I and many have pointed out, it ONLY works when both parties subscribe to the same cultural and moral paradigm."
To clarify my response to this challenge: I believe the Golden Rule to be a norm that is applicable to all cultures and moral paradigms, short of those individuals with mental illness.
I am wholly unaware of any society or culture in which individuals think it okay if someone kills or wounds them for no reason. I do realize that in some especially zealous (which sometimes may tickle the edges of mentally unbalanced) circles, there are individuals who believe that it is a Good to hurt or kill others, but I'm unaware of any where doing harm unto Me is considered a good and, therefore, "Do unto others as you'd have them do unto you," is fairly universally applicable.
Am I mistaken?
Dan,""Do unto others as you'd have them do unto you," is fairly universally applicable.
Am I mistaken?"
Yes. Quite. We've already been over this but I don't mind giving it one more shot.
Yes there are cultures where people believe it is OK to hurt ME, if it's for my own good. Of course in your own cultural paradigm you don't think it's for your own good, you see it as being harm done to you for no reason. But the person doing the harm sees plenty reason and is acting consistent with the Golden Rule to deal with you exactly as they'd expect and prefer you deal with them were you they.
Yet, yet, another example then. If I became indolent and lazy and a burden to those I know, I'd rather my friends and family throw me into the street so that cold and hunger would teach me the lesson to not be idle. If I followed the Golden Rule, I'd come to your parish, find someone parked on their ample backside and collecting a stipend and throw them into the street. I'd be doing to them EXACTLY what I'd want them to do to me.
Mediate on this, Dan: The Golden Rule says to do to others as you would have others do to you. It does NOT say do tho others as THEY prefer you do to them.
Dan,
If soldiers walked down a street and slit open pregnant women with bayonets, ripping the unborn babies out of their wombs, this would be a sin. If soldiers picked up babies and smashed their heads against brick walls, this would be a sin. If soldiers raped women in the street and then shot them, this would be a sin. If soldiers lined up innocent people and shot them, this would be a sin.
So, you are saying, where did such atrocities happen? The rape of Nanking where Japanese soldiers shot down and killed 300,000 innocent people. Many of them Christians.
But there are gray areas, dropping bombs on Germany and Japan to bring the war to an end. Wars are miserable and innocents get hurt.
As for the rape of Naanking, I believe God's judgment came on them at Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
Now, what is your answer to the John the Baptist scriptures which are in the NT.
Dan,
You are right God does not command us to kill our enemies. Okay, rejoice because Larry Who does not believe God is a murderer.
But this has never been my point with you. You have always slanted the discussion your direction playing word games.
My point is that Jesus our Lord and Savior, Son of God, the Son of Man is not always a pacifist. He is also the Man of War, He is Faithful and True, He is the Judge.
So, surely you must agree that Jesus is not always a pacifist? Just answer yes or no.
Larry, no word games: Jesus WAS always a peacemaker in his actions and teachings while he was on earth. Period. I don't know how else to say it. Jesus the Man was a peacemaker.
I'm using Peacemaker instead of Pacifist because the latter has many connotations that might need to be sorted out.
I don't know that God is a pacifist. God is God and will do what God will do.
I personally don't think God is in the business of going around killing babies. I think that's someone's poor interpretation of God.
But then, God being God and all, is beyond my understanding so I won't say God is universally anything but Love.
But Jesus - as portrayed in the Gospels - was a peacemaker. If you don't think so, then just offer up an example of where Jesus taught violence.
But I've already offered that option to you and you haven't thrown out any verses for the plain reason that Jesus never did such. Jesus in the Gospels: HE is our example of how we ought to live. HIS teachings are the ones we're to follow if we want to be called Christians.
Where am I wrong?
All you have offered is that John the Baptist never told soldiers to not be soldiers. That's hardly conclusive. John also didn't tell the soldiers not to beat their wives, does that mean that God endorses wife-beating??!!
"Mediate on this, Dan: The Golden Rule says to do to others as you would have others do to you. It does NOT say do tho others as THEY prefer you do to them."
I've meditated, friend. My ruminations tell me that 99.8% of the world thinks that they don't want others to do harm unto them. Therefore, "Do unto others as you'd have them do unto you" is a fairly logical, consistent and wise teaching.
Yes, you may well want your friends to throw you in the street were you to become lazy. BUT you don't want your friends to kill you. You don't want your friends to rape you or sever your limbs.
There is no such culture of which I'm aware where that is true.
Then, my man, you haven't meditated long enough. As Rafiki says to Simba in Dinsey's The Lion King:
Look haaaaaahrrrder!
You are still using the Golden Rule as if it said, "Do to others as they want you to do to them."
Attend.
Would it be OK if I came by you and threw a cold tub of water on you?
Probably not.
Would it be OK if I came by you and threw a cold tub of water on you if you were on fire?
Probably yes.
The real problem would come if I were passing by you (with my tub of cold water) and I thought or imagined that you were on fire although you are quite convinced that you are not.
That's the situation in applying the Golden Rule as it is written across cultures. And yes, there are cultures that say that if you are in a state of separation from God because of thievery, it is better for anyone to have their hand cut off than to remain guilty before God of theft.
And they would be quick to tell you that if they were a thief, you should cut off their hand. Just like you would say that it's OK to dump a tub of water on you if you are on fire.
yeahhh, I think we disagree on this'n. I think you'd have to look long and hard to find someone saying, "I'd like for you to lop my hand off," and even longer and harder to find an entire culture that thought thusly.
Dan,
"Where am I wrong?"
Forgive me. I forget that you package Jesus the Man as being differerent from Jesus the risen Lord and Christ.
Let's look outside of His three year ministry when He walked the earth as a Man.
Now, this opens up for your consideration Acts to Revelation. With this scenario, an we agree that Jesus is not always a pacifist? Can we agree that sometimes He is the Judge? Sometimes He is Faithful and True
(or Man of War)?
Dan,
Mea culpa. Lost a c in my first can we agree.
If we're talking about God almighty, all I know is that the Bible defines God as Love. I'm very hestitant to put God in any box outside of that self-given descriptor. I'm not calling God a pacifist, nor am I calling God a warrior. God is God.
We can certainly look at God and say, "Sometimes, God is like a warrior, and sometimes God is like a pacifist, and sometimes like a mother hen who'd gather her chicks under her wings," if that makes you feel better.
NOW that I've answered your question, are you prepared to acknowledge that there
1. Is not one verse attribtuted to Jesus the God man on earth where Jesus advocates violence?
2. Is not one verse in all the Bible where we are commanded to sometimes kill others?
(Actually, that last line is not exactly true. There are at least a few places in the OT where God says, "Kill disrespectful children," and such, but then we don't take that to be a literal command to us, do we?)
"I forget that you package Jesus the Man as being differerent from Jesus the risen Lord and Christ."
You appear to speak this in jest. Do you not suppose that Jesus the man may have acted in a different role than Jesus the God?
And if not, IF you think that Jesus the man ALWAYS taught what Jesus the God teaches, then is that not an argument to embrace the peacemaking that Jesus the Man taught?
Dan,
"If we're talking about God almighty, all I know is that the Bible defines God as Love. I'm very hestitant to put God in any box outside of that self-given descriptor. I'm not calling God a pacifist, nor am I calling God a warrior. God is God."
I think we are starting to make some progress, but you are still a little fuzzy and out of focus.
In Matthew 22:41-46, Jesus makes a powerful statement to the Pharisees. And He refers to Psalm 110. In Psalm 110, which Jesus the Man brought into the New Testament:
The Lord said to my Lord,
“Sit in the place of honor at my right hand
until I humble your enemies,
making them a footstool under your feet.”
2 The Lord will extend your powerful kingdom from Jerusalem;
you will rule over your enemies.
3 When you go to war,
your people will serve you willingly.
You are arrayed in holy garments,
and your strength will be renewed each day like the morning dew.
4 The Lord has taken an oath and will not break his vow:
“You are a priest forever in the order of Melchizedek.”
5 The Lord stands at your right hand to protect you.
He will strike down many kings when his anger erupts.
6 He will punish the nations
and fill their lands with corpses;
he will shatter heads over the whole earth.
7 But he himself will be refreshed from brooks along the way.
He will be victorious. Psalm 110: 1-7
This refers to Jesus because of the statement about the Lord being a priest according to the order of Melchizedek (Hebrews 6, 7 & 8).
Now, I assume that striking down kings, punishing nations,filling the lands with corpses, shattering heads and being victorious does not fit in with being a pacifist, right?
So, will you agree that Jesus our risen Lord and Christ is not always a pacifist? And sometimes Jesus is the Man of War? And sometimes He is the Judge?
Dan:""I'd like for you to lop my hand off," and even longer and harder to find an entire culture that thought thusly."
OK. Third time and then I'll give it up as a hopeless case.
You are STILL reading the Golden Rule as if it said "Do to others as they want you to do to them."
It says: "Do to other as you would have other do to you."
As the Rule is written, it doesn't involve consulting the other person at all as to what they want or don't want. You simply project your wants and tolerances on them.
To dismiss this as "nobody wants to have their hand lopped off" is as simplistically dishonest as saying: "No one wants to have their tooth pulled." I don't. Do you? I positively don't want it. But IF (please take note of this word 'if') I had an infected jawbone and was in chronic terrible pain, I'd want the tooth pulled.
But just to walk up out of the blue and say to passers by, "Do you want me to pull your tooth?" the answer would be a universal 'no'.
Just like that to the strict adherent of Shiah you would ask, "Do you want me to lop off your hand?" "You mean right here and right now?" "No." (see Dan was right!) But if you said, "If you were a thief, would you want me to lop off your hand?" "But I'm not a thief." "But suppose you were." "Well, in that case, yes, I'd want you to do the right thing and lop off my hand." (see, Dan is wrong)
As long as you misunderstand the Golden rule as if it said "Do to others as they want you to do to them" you will not get this.
When the time comes that you read it as it is written, you will see the problem with it.
Dan, I don't want to get too far afield from your main posts, so I'll keep this brief--maybe we can have longer discussions later.
As you know, I share your deep commitment to gospel nonviolence (Christian pacifism). I also understand that you are trying to prioritize certain parts of Scripture and articulate a hermeneutic (theo-geek-speak for "an interpretive approach") that adequately accounts for the violent parts of Scripture without discounting the normativity of the nonviolent portions. All this is to be commended.
Yet, I am wary of any approach which tries to separate out the "ideas" or "teachings" or "truths" of Scripture. If the fundamentalist error is to treat the biblical canon as a rulebook combined with scientific observations(!), an all too common liberal error in reaction is to turn it into a compendium of universal principles. Both abstract from the narrative framework of the canon in a way I don't find helpful.
I doubt that the Sermon on the Mount is intelligible apart from its rooting in the Gospel accounts of Jesus, for instance. Nor are the 10 Commandments comprehensible apart from their foundation narrative in the exodus from Egypt and the forging of the covenant with God. Only because Israel sees itself addressed truly by YHWH when He says, "I am YHWH your God who brought you from out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage," does it make sense that He continues, "Thou Shalt Have No Other gods before Me." There is an implied, "therefore." The Decalogue and most of the rest of the legislative passages in the Torah are predicated upon the exodus/covenant/exile/return pattern of the Jewish Identity Narrative.
Likewise, Christian ethics, including our ethic of nonviolence, is not just a collection of easily universalizable principles. Rather, it depends on our participation (via baptism, eucharist, and the life of shared discipleship together) in Christian Identity Story--the story of Jesus and his church (called out community).
Gospel nonviolence makes no sense to those, including many who call themselves Christians, whose lives are more shaped by the dominant narrative of our culture: the "myth of redemptive violence."
So, I find it more difficult to separate gospel nonviolence from Christology, from Trinitarian faith, etc. than you appear to find it. Buddhists brag that Buddhism would be equally true if Siddartha Guatama the Buddha never existed. The idea that Gautama might be wholly legendary bothers no one I know in the Buddhist Peace Fellowship. Christianity is different: Ours is a very historical religion. We bet everything the gospel claim is true that the Creator entered creation, entered history, lived faithfully and redemptively, was betrayed and assassinated and that God raised him up again.
The resurrection of Jesus is not "evidence that demands a verdict," but, rather, is God's vindication of the Jesus' Way of the Cross--for us as well as for Jesus.
Well, Michael, I reckon you know that I believe in the Resurrection as historical reality. I believe the Bible depicts Mary as a very young woman/child who was a virgin.
But neither of these are provable in any sense that I know of and, that being the case, I accept it on faith. But what we do know as doubtless reality are those words recorded as Jesus' in the Bible.
It is Jesus' teachings that make me believe in his reality. Not his reality that makes me believe in his teachings.
Dan,
"It is Jesus' teachings that make me believe in his reality. Not his reality that makes me believe in his teachings."
Wait a second on this. I got saved because the Holy Spirit convicted me of my sin. And then Jesus became real to me. It had nothing to do with His teachings.
Without the reality of Jesus living in me, the teachings of Christ and the whole NT becomes just another book of laws. Laws that we can not ever live up to.
E said:
You are STILL reading the Golden Rule as if it said "Do to others as they want you to do to them."
It says: "Do to other as you would have other do to you."
I'm thinking we're either misunderstanding one another or something here, E. I understand the difference you're pointing out above.
I'm going on to say that, while there are some who might SAY, "Why, if I ever was guilty of stealing a loaf of bread, they OUGHT to lop my hand off. That's what our values system tells us and it's right!" I don't think there are many who've found themselves hungry and out of options and, having stolen the bread say, "Because I said that if I was ever in this circumstance I would want you to lop my hand off, so lop away!" Rather, I suspect that there are no cultures where people WANT their hands cut off.
"As you would have them do unto you." This bread thief would love to be forgiven this debt and NOT have his hand lopped off, right? His daughter killed, his son raped. These are not something that people would have others do unto them.
AND, to bring this around to where it started - in response to this:
My objections remain. I could still take all your criteria and come to the conclusion that Jesus wants us to bomb Iraq.
No. I don't think you can. I DON'T want Iraq to bomb us, therefore I OUGHT not bomb Iraq, IF I want to live by the Golden rule.
I'm saying that:
1. We who accept Jesus as authoritative have been commanded to Do unto others.
2. We have been commanded to overcome evil with good.
3. We have been commanded to follow in Jesus' peacemaking footsteps (which Larry or no one has or can dispute).
And NOWHERE in the Bible - although there are examples of violence-as-solution therein - NOWHERE are we commanded to do other than the above.
Therefore, I wonder where the violence-as-solution believers find their justification to do so? If you want to make the argument that the STATE might have an obligation to engage in sinful "violence-as-solution" I think you might could make a more reasonable case. But those who'd hope to follow Jesus' and biblical teachings have no room to participate in that and consider themselves still practicing consistent biblical teachings.
Michael:"Fellowship. Christianity is different: Ours is a very historical religion. We bet everything the gospel claim is true that the Creator entered creation, entered history, lived faithfully and redemptively, was betrayed and assassinated and that God raised him up again."
Well, I suppose one is going to find an honest Christian sentiment if one is only patient long enough.
This above is very true and very critical to any discussion involving Christianity. You can be Buddhist, Shinto, Pagan, Hindu (although probably not Krishna), Santeria, and a lot of other religions without having to believe that a particular person ever existed.
Buddhism is the best example because the story points the way to be Bodhi, enlightened, and if you attain that it matters not a twit whether Surdartha ever existed or not.
But not so with Christianity. As Paul pointed out, "If Christ died not, your faith is in vain."
How some ever, the scheme or paradigm begins to break down if it proceeds, as alas it almost always does, from "I know this faith is true, so ergo the history that validates it must then be true. Anything that supports the origins is true and anything that does not is not true."
Very similar to my question on criteria for interpreting scripture is my question on viewing history. Do we establish criteria before we even start as to what is accepted as historical fact and what is not, or do we sift through what is there and only accept (or in some cases, fabricate) the evidence that fits our predetermined version of history?
Of course, for the thinking person, there is no such thing as a historical fact, there is only the odds. How likely is it that this or that happened based on the evidence we have.
Dan:"I don't think there are many who've found themselves hungry and out of options and, having stolen the bread say, "Because I said that if I was ever in this circumstance I would want you to lop my hand off, so lop away!""
Of course not .... IF they were being consulted about it. But under the Golden Rule as it is written, the loppee is not being consulted about how he feels about it. So while actually faced with the reality of having a hand lopped off, I am sure it would be as you described. Actually facing it and not imagining that you are facing it.
Alas following the Golden Rule as it is written, you are left with only imagining that you are facing the consequences of your beliefs, not actually doing it.
So the hand would (and has been many times in history) be lopped.
Unless you want to append the Golden Rule to read: "Do to others as you would have them do to you after you have made sure that it's the way you would feel if you really, really, really were facing the situation and not just imagining you were facing it."
But then you'd be correcting Jesus.
Dan said:>"If we're talking about God almighty, all I know is that the Bible defines God as Love.
To quote A.W. Tozer:
"The apostle John, by the Spirit, wrote, "God is love," and some have taken his words to be a definitive statement concerning the essential nature of God. This is a great error. John was by those words stating a fact, but he was not offering a definition.
...
If literally God is love, then literally love is God, and we are in all duty bound to worship love as the only God there is. If love is equal to God then God is only equal to love, and God and love are identical. Thus we destroy the concept of personality in God and deny outright all His attributes save one, and that one we substitute for God. The God we have left is not the God of Israel; He is not the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ; He is not the God of the prophets and the apostles; He is not the God of the saints and reformers and martyrs, nor yet the God of the theologians and hymnists of the church."
He continues...
"The words 'God is love' mean that love is an essential attribute of God. Love is something true of God but it is not God. It expresses the way God is in His unitary being, as do the words holiness, justice, faithfulness and truth. Because God is immutable He always acts like Himself, and because He is a unity He never suspends one of His attributes in order to exercise another."
Dan,
"3. We have been commanded to follow in Jesus' peacemaking footsteps (which Larry or no one has or can dispute)."
A light has finally switched on inside my suntanned but hairless pate. You and your peacemaking group do not believe that Jesus, the risen Lord, ever reveals Himself as anything but the Prince of Peace (a peacemaker). You and your group do not believe that Jesus, the risen Lord, is sometimes the Judge and sometimes the Man of War (Faithful and True..Lord God of Hosts...Commander of Heaven's Armies).
If that is the case, then there is no doubt in my mind that your peacemaking efforts will fall on deaf ears in the Body of Christ. After all, you only have a narrow argument without scriptural backing.
Larry, this is not precisely right. Some Christian pacifists believe that while Christ is Judge, we are commanded not to judge. We are commanded to imitate God's mercy, but forbidden to imitate God's wrath.
I cannot speak for Dan, but I understand the war imagery for Christ to be real--but not literal, not against "flesh and blood." I have written on violence and nonviolence in the book of Revelation as an example of this. If you go to my blog, Levellers, http://levellers.wordpress.com/ and search for "revelation" I think you will find that document.
For how to understand the "Holy War" passages of the Old Testament, read Millard Lind's Yahweh is a Warrior and/or Willard Swartley's Slavery, Sabbath, War and Women: Case Issues in Biblical Interpretation.
In a way similar to the way that pacifist Muslims (yes, there are some) interpret Jihad as mostly an internal struggle against sin and to be outwardly manifested as a nonviolent struggle against injustice, so I find it very easy to think of God in Christ waging war--against the Powers and Authorities of Darkness. Outwardly on earth, God fights against evil in and through Christian (and other) nonviolent struggle for justice. There is no need to deny the warrior imagery of Scripture--but to realize that Christ has transformed the nature of that imagery and the WAY we fight. For this reason, the early Church Father, Clement of Alexandria called the Church, the "army that sheds no blood."
The question of whether the teachings of Jesus lead one to believe in his reality/divinity or the other way around sound to me to be very unhelpful divisions. Neither is proof of the other. But, Larry, if someone says to me that they are "saved" by Jesus and then decide to follow his teachings as some kind of "optional extra," and I wonder just what "Jesus" they think "saved" them. The Gospels present Jesus saying, "Come follow me." The followers (disciples) come to figure out who he is "on the way" of discipleship.
But, Dan, Jesus teaching was for people following him--and was not a bunch of abstract principles, not even about peacemaking. He proclaimed the inbreaking Rule ("Kingdom") of God--that was breaking into this world in and through HIM. The ethics were part of the new life in that Rule. It was a proclamation of a Divine Revolution which was why the political powers found him a threat.
So, once more, the teachings and the person are part of a single narrative, not understandable apart from one another. And if Jesus had not been raised, the disciples would have permanently lost faith and there would have been no Christianity. The cross was the logical outcome of Jesus' Way--but the Resurrection was God's statement that living that way, following Jesus in a cruciform life, is not defeat but victory--a victory the violent cannot comprehend.
Neither is provable or proves the other. Neither is separable from the other without doing violence to the whole. It is an identity narrative that tells us who we are as a people (and who the God is that we worship, the Christ that we follow).
Am I making any sense? If Jesus is NOT the Messiah and the resurrection is a myth, then gospel nonviolence makes no sense. I can only refuse to arm myself and kill for me and mine because "nature red in tooth and claw" is not the whole story--only because, as Martin Luther King, Jr. put it, "we have divine companionship in the nonviolent struggle," because suffering love is the heart of the universe--and the heart of its Creator.
I am not claiming that only Christians can be pacifists (though I am skeptical of purely logical, secular arguments). I meet with Jewish pacifists, Buddhist ones, Muslim pacifists, etc. I am saying that the REASON Christians are to be nonviolent are different--bound up with who we believe God has revealed God's Self to be in Christ. (Which is also why Christian endorsement of war or participation in any violence shows a profound failure to comprehend the gospel.) It is a narrative ethic, an ethic for disciples, followers--who have been initiated into the Story. To everyone else (including those who have heard only the violent misreadings of the Story), it is foolishness.
Michael,
Peggy Smith was 84 years old and blind. Her sister, Christine, was 82 and doubled over with arthritis. They prayed for years for a revival to come to the Hebrides. When they felt revival was imminent, they wrote a letter to an evangelist, Duncan Campbell, asking him to come to the Hebrides and preach. He refused.
The sisters wrote a second letter to Campbell saying, "If you knew God like you think you know God..."
Campbell went and revival broke out in the Hebrides. The revival lasted for years.
Now, how does this fit in with what you wrote, right?
If the sisters were alive today, they would write you and say, "If you knew God like you think you know God, you would not have written those silly words you just wrote."
Sadly, the sister died in the 1950's.
>who we believe God has revealed God's Self to be in Christ.
That's the question isn't it? So, what do we all believe was revealed about God in Christ?
Did He come to be 'The Way' (note in Acts how the early Christians were called people of 'The Way' - not 'A Way') - or was He merely an example for us to follow?
Is salvation wholly a work of God on the Cross - or is salvation to be worked out by us in discipleship with the Cross merely an unfortunate byproduct of Jesus' teachings - with the latter avoiding our culpability for the necessity of the Cross?
Michael said:>The cross was the logical outcome of Jesus' Way--but the Resurrection was God's statement that living that way, following Jesus in a cruciform life, is not defeat but victory--a victory the violent cannot comprehend.
The Bible says that the wages of sin is death. So, since we're all sinners, it logically follows that we all have to die for our sins. But if we die for our sins, that's it. We've paid the price by death and have no more life to give. That's why only God can pay for the sins of the world because He is the only one who can lay down life and pick it back up again. He graciously paid the price for us - and He lives on - as He is the sole creator and giver of life. That is the Gospel - the good news. Not that Jesus shows us how to live life - although He does that - but that in the Cross there is life offered to any and all who come to it.
Larry, are you saying these women would have wanted "revival to break out' and the result to be an increase in violence, and all the "converts" to take up arms? If not, what are you saying? If this is what you are saying, you know NOTHING of God.
> If this is what you are saying, you know NOTHING of God.
We all on here know OF God. However, knowledge of religion will get us nowhere. The more important question is, do we KNOW HIM - and understand God as He really is or have we picked an attribute and inaccurately defined Him as being primarily one attribute at the expense of another? For example, Dan has repeatedly stated at various times that 'God is love' and that he believes that is definitive. That most likely explains his belief that monogomous homosexual relationships are blessed by God. After all, God is love (definition), and anything that results in love is of God - and therefore cannot be wrong. However, as Tozer states: "Love is something true of God but it is not God. It expresses the way God is in His unitary being, as do the words holiness, justice, faithfulness and truth."
Or what if the Cross is not about atonement and the Gospel is more social and political in nature than it is spiritual ... and results in the downplaying of sin and focuses more on externals than internals?
This is all deep stuff and definitely worth continuing to meditate over and talk about.
At the end of the day, we don't just want to know OF God, but we want to KNOW HIM as He really is. Let that be all of our prayers as we seek the truth.
Michael,
It was a tongue-in-cheek statement. Sadly, you could not see my facial expression.
And at the same time, I can see where it would confuse you.
Sorry.
Thanks for the comments, all. Not sure how to respond. Let me try this...
"Did He come to be 'The Way' - or was He merely an example for us to follow?"
Perhaps this is the difference between some of us...when I think of Jesus as the Way, I think that means that we're saved by faith in Jesus and by God's grace AND it implies ALSO trusting in Jesus' teachings as The Way to live.
But then, I'm sure you all believe this, as well.
So, that returns me to my original point and question:
We have some fairly direct commands about how we are to live and how we are to imitate Jesus' life in our own. We have no commands to kill our enemies.
Where do we get off, then, supporting the killing of our enemies - and especially the killing of our enemies' neighbors and children - when we have no such command to that end in the Bible and when we have commands to the opposite effect that are fairly clear?
This is not issued as a condemnatory statement but an honest question. I DO see violence used in the OT, but I see no commands for us to do so and I see, in fact, commands to the opposite effect. Where do you find your marching orders to support war?
There's a lot being said here, but I hear no one addressing this (with the exception of Eleutheros, who dismissed the question out of hand).
Dan,
There are no NT commands for Christians to kill our enemies.
But even though Michael has given a long bunny trail-filled answer,
I would like to know your personal view on something. Do you believe that Jesus, our risen Lord, always reveals Himself as the Prince of Peace to people? Does He ever reveal Himself as the Judge or the Man of War (also called Lord God Hosts, Faithful and True, Commander of Heaven's Armies)?
Dan:"We have some fairly direct commands about how we are to live and how we are to imitate Jesus' life in our own. We have no commands to kill our enemies."
Dan, are you familiar with the two sizable Protestant denominations Christian Church and Church of Christ? There theology is nearly identical (having come from exactly the same source) the only material difference between them being that the CoC views musical instruments as being improper in worship service.
Why, your jug band Jeff Street sense of musical propriety might ask, would that enter into it?
The reason given (this is not the actual origin of the practice) is that we are not to have musical instruments in church services because they are not mentioned in the New Testament.
There, that settles it, no??
You objection that Jesus no where tells us to kill our enemies holds just about as much water, I'm afraid. Sure, he never commands us to kill our enemies, but then again he never commanded us to hold church service (confining myself here to Jesus actual words, as you do for your basis).
Using the same logic you use, then, we are forbidden to hold church meetings because Jesus didn't specifically command it.
He also did not command us to pay clergy, nor even to have clergy to begin with, to become involved in politics, to wash the dishes nor to brush our teeth.
Are we then to imply from this that He forbids us to do so?
I'm looking for the discernible and objective rule here, as I always am, so I can be sure you aren't making all this stuff up or getting it from the Jesus sock puppet. When Jesus fails to specifically mention something, how do we decide that it is a command not to do it?
No, holding that He commands us to do just the opposite won't cut it. Saying that he said to forgive our enemies and do good to them and that we can't do that if we are killing them won't do. He also said we are to fast, but He didn't say we were to starve to death. He said we are to not be anxious, but He also praised the ten virgins in the parable for preparing ahead.
On the surface it sounds like a devastating argument, Jesus never said to kill our enemies! Fine. Again we are left to sift through the whole of reality to find when that means we are commanded specifically NOT to do it because of that silence.
"You objection that Jesus no where tells us to kill our enemies holds just about as much water, I'm afraid."
But it does for those people who hold that the Bible is the authoritative word for how to live our lives. Or rather, it should.
Additionally, we DO have instructions on how to treat our enemies: Love them. We HAVE instructions on how to stand opposed to evil: Not cower from it, nor strike back, but turn the other cheek - overcome evil with good.
If we were speaking from a biblical void (as one might make the case on peak oil issues or abortion issues), then your statement holds more water. But the commands given to us specifically are consistently of the peacemaking variety, not of the war-endorsing type.
Or at least, that's my question: On what authority would our Bible believers present make the case that killing our enemies is acceptable given the preponderance of commands that seem (or DO) contraindicate that?
Larry asked:
"I would like to know your personal view on something. Do you believe that Jesus, our risen Lord, always reveals Himself as the Prince of Peace to people?"
Larry, first, I think I've answered this and second, I'm done answering your questions for now if you're not going to answer mine. Conversation is a two-way street.
I think our problems are due to the fact that we are worshiping different Gods. There is no way we can have this many differences in what the nature of God is and not in effect be worshipping different gods. There is only one true God, and one truth of reality. God will honestly reveal Himself to a truth seeker, and yet we have a common enemy who is always trying to deceive us by subtly twisting truth into error. How do solve this? Well, I don't believe it'll be solved by anything other than God revealing Himself to us. That requires us to ask for Him to reveal the truth to us. Let us all pray that we will see God for who He really is - and that we'll see sin for what it really is. God is faithful. A prayer in God's will is a prayer He will always answer.
Dan:"On what authority would our Bible believers present make the case that killing our enemies is acceptable given the preponderance of commands that seem (or DO) contraindicate that?"
That would be just like asking: On what authority would Bible believers make the case that eating was acceptable given the preponderance of commands that tell them to fast?"
You see, your stance is that a command to forgive your enemies is a contradiction to EVER use deadly force against them. There's no basis in logic for this.
Jesus didn't give us specific instructions on eating (how much, what kind, when, etc) because it's obvious that eating is something we don't have any problem with and that's true whether the eating is appropriate (for health and strength) or inappropriate (when obese). No reason to say to His followers, 'Oh, guys, be sure you from time to time.'
No, eating, however necessary and appropriate, is not the problem. Controlling and abstaining when appropriate is the problem. Hence the teachings on moderation and fasting.
EXACTLY the same thing applies with violence. Just like with food, there was (is) no need for Jesus toe have a separate teaching to say it's OK to use deadly force to defend yourself. Everyone already knows that, everyone already does that. Jesus teaching (just like with moderation and fasting) is to keep the behavior (violence) from being a way of life.
Otherwise, we need to apply your principle to all teachings in the NT. Jesus gave us the paradigm for the physical relationship between two adults (Matt 19:4-6) and he did not once, not even once, mention a homosexual union. So, following Dan's rules of Biblical interpretation, we must, must we not, conclude that Jesus was thereby forbidding and condemning homosexual relationships?
"your stance is that a command to forgive your enemies is a contradiction to EVER use deadly force against them. There's no basis in logic for this."
No, my stance is that a command to overcome evil with good, love our enemies, turn the other cheek, etc, etc, etc sure seems like a contradiction on using deadly force against them AND EVEN MORESO against using deadly force against innocent bystanders.
Tell you what, let's make a compromise - for arguments' sake - that we can kill deadly killers who will not be stopped any other way (DKWWNBSAOW). BUT, where does that leave us on innocent bystanders?
Would we laud the police who dropped a bomb to stop the DKWWNBSAOW if it took out half the block in the process? And still, where do we find justification for such in the Bible?
On a side note, I find it interesting that the "heathen" here is the one trying to actually give a biblical defense for war-as-solution while the Bible folk are mostly quiet or only asking questions. (No offense, Eleutheros - I don't even know that you identify yourself in terms of "heathen," "pagan," "non-religious Jesus fan" or what-have-you after all this time...it just seemed like a good label for these purposes. I certainly don't consider you a heathen...)
"That would be just like asking: On what authority would Bible believers make the case that eating was acceptable given the preponderance of commands that tell them to fast?"
Let me put this another way: Eating is implicit in fasting. A fast is a cessation of eating and, in my understanding of the word, a fast indicates a cessation of eating food for a time, which will be followed by returning to eating.
My problem is that I don't see killing of enemies and especially the killing of innocent bystanders AT ALL implicit in "overcome evil with good," do others? Really?
It is clear, Dan, that Larry and Roger are so under the spell of the myth of redemptive violence that they MUST find a way around Jesus' clear commands to love enemies, overcome evil with good, etc., because they simply cannot imagine not killing people the government tells them to kill and thinking this is somehow in obedience to Christ as "Man of War." Their imaginations are not baptized. They are among those who, if they were in 1st C. Palestine, would have abandoned Jesus when they realized he wasn't the violent Messiah they were expecting.
Dan:"I certainly don't consider you a heathen."
I wouldn't take offense if you did.
But you're mistook in thinking I am positing that war and violence has a Bible base. Perhaps, perhaps not. But for sure radical pacifism as you express it is NOT the inevitable conclusion one would come to if one were reading the Bible without preconditioning and bias. It might be ONE conclusion, but not the only one logically, nor even spiritually, draw from the Writ.
Do you suppose the relative silence from the true believers might not be from them standing about, hat in hand, head lowered, eyes downcast, shuffling their feet nervously because they don't have and answer and you've got them on the spot? Or do you suppose it might be that the notion is so loony there's scarcely a way to answer it without, as it says in proverbs, 'answering a fool according to his folly.'? Just wondering.
For me your entire realm of speculation falls into the category of 'render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar's'. Remember when asked whether it was right to pay tribute to Caesar, Jesus asked them to see the dinarius which bore Caesar's image and inscription. They could only have gotten that coin by already having deal with Caesar, so why the question as to whether it was now right to give back some it to this very Caesar as tax?
You are upset that we are bombing innocents in Iraq and so I, substituting for Jesus in this dress rehearsal, ask to see the money wherewith the bomb was bought that killed the innocents. You produce it from your pocket and it is dripping with oil. "Render unto Bush the things that are Bush's."
What I mean by this is that it is easy to talk about the police taking out a city block to get rid of one bad guy, and it's easy to decry dropping bombs on Iraq. A protest here, a letter there, we all stand around to get our picture taken with whosit, and that's that. Sure the Bible says don't kill innocents and there, we've done our part, we are against it.
But look closely at the tribute money and whose image, inscription, and oil is on it. Every time you traffic in that money you are killing that innocent. Every fat, idle, non-productive person standing around in a suit is killing that innocent.
To all such Bible based advocates of pacifism I say, stop killing the innocents.
Yet no one stops.
I must say that, no matter what anyone else may think, I find this conversation fascinating, instructive and helpful.
Not every aspect of it, mind you...
Gee, my ears were tingling. Maybe, someone is talking about me.
Rather than using Dan's example of the DKWWNBSAOW or the police dropping a bomb on a block to stop one bad man. Let's use Hiroshima.
Who's to blame for the bomb being dropped on Hiroshima? Was it the evil President Truman? Or the blood thirsty Americans? No, not at all.
The guilt for Hiroshima lies at the feet of Japan and Emperor Hirohito. Period.
Do I feel bad that innocents were killed? Yes. Do I feel guilty for the bomb being dropped? No. Do I like war? No.
But at the same time, you can't negotiate with evil.
The greatest negotiator - called the Wonderful Counselor and Man of War - did not negotiate in the first war ever fought. You know, the one in Revelation 12:7. He went to war against Lucifer. Why didn't Jesus have peace talks with Lucifer?
Or what about Herod, Ananias and Saphira? Jesus killed them. As in dead.
So, my peacemaker friends, explain how Jesus ,who is always the peacemaker to you, could ever possibly kill Herod, Ananias and Saphira?
1. I've answered that.
2. I see how you are basing your suggested defense in the Hiroshima case for nat'l defense reasons (I disagree, but I see that you're at least offering a nat'l defense reason), but I'm still a-waiting on some biblical basis for doing so.
Answer the still-unanswered question and I can respond better to your already answered questions.
Michael,
"Their imaginations are not baptized. They are among those who, if they were in 1st C. Palestine, would have abandoned Jesus when they realized he wasn't the violent Messiah they were expecting."
Maybe yes, maybe no. But this I'm sure of, you would have fled the group of believers when you heard that Jesus killed Ananias and Saphira.
"It might be ONE conclusion, but not the only one logically, nor even spiritually, draw from the Writ."
What other conclusion(s) might one draw? That is what I'm asking of my reader(s). Should there be any left at this point.
Even if we take the text quite literally, Larry, JESUS did not kill Ananias and Sapphira, GOD did. The text does not even say that the risen Christ killed them. It says that God judged them and they died--possibly from fright or self-accusation?
At any rate, if I were part of that band of early Christians, I would definitely have some conversations with the apostles about the nature of God, etc.--and I would be VERY SURE not to lie about my financial contributions--but I don't think I would conclude that the risen Christ killed them, nor would I run away.
From Acts 5 (if anyone's interested in reading the source):
A man named Ananias, however, with his wife Sapphira, sold a piece of property.
He retained for himself, with his wife's knowledge, some of the purchase price, took the remainder, and put it at the feet of the apostles.
But Peter said, "Ananias, why has Satan filled your heart so that you lied to the holy Spirit and retained part of the price of the land?
While it remained unsold, did it not remain yours? And when it was sold, was it not still under your control? Why did you contrive this deed? You have lied not to human beings, but to God."
When Ananias heard these words, he fell down and breathed his last, and great fear came upon all who heard of it.
The young men came and wrapped him up, then carried him out and buried him.
After an interval of about three hours, his wife came in, unaware of what had happened.
Peter said to her, "Tell me, did you sell the land for this amount?" She answered, "Yes, for that amount."
Then Peter said to her, "Why did you agree to test the Spirit of the Lord? Listen, the footsteps of those who have buried your husband are at the door, and they will carry you out."
At once, she fell down at his feet and breathed her last. When the young men entered they found her dead, so they carried her out and buried her beside her husband.
And great fear came upon the whole church and upon all who heard of these things.
With the reminder that the context was that the church at this point was holding "all things in common," so that by joining with the church, they were enjoying the benefits of the shared goods while at the same time greedily holding on to a little somethin' somethin' for themselves.
Seems to me this is a passage about greed, lying and materialism moreso than about a death-dealing God.
These deaths are not attributed to God in the text, it is something that you're implying, is it not, Larry?
And, I'll bother to repeat what I've already answered, it is certainly not the work of the Man-God Jesus who walked this earth for some 33 years preaching non-violent peacemaking, among other things.
Michael said:>Even if we take the text quite literally, Larry, JESUS did not kill Ananias and Sapphira, GOD did.
Dan said:>And, I'll bother to repeat what I've already answered, it is certainly not the work of the Man-God Jesus who walked this earth for some 33 years preaching non-violent peacemaking, among other things.
Where in scripture do we find that there is a difference in nature in the God-head?
Larry said:>>So, my peacemaker friends, explain how Jesus ,who is always the peacemaker to you, could ever possibly kill Herod, Ananias and Saphira?
This question goes to the heart of the conversation. Who is the God we worship? Is He a God of principle - or a God of rules where we have a few 'exceptions' that we can't really explain? (ie - wars of the OT, current testimonies of transformations of folks in alternate lifestyles, Ananias and Saphira, the various judgements in the OT - including the Flood, etc).
Could it be that the overarching principle of scripture (and life) is summed up in Romans 6:23
"For the wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord."
We see that referenced in scripture from Genesis to Revelation.
Dan,
"You have lied not to human beings, but to God."
And:
"Why did you agree to test the Spirit of the Lord?..."
Who is the Head the Church? Jesus is the Head of the Church (Eph. 5:23). And it is interesting to note that Jesus commanded the apostles to tell the people that He was ordained by God to be Judge of the living and dead (Acts 10:42).
So, in Acts 5:1-11, you have two believers who lied to God and the Holy Spirit, and the Head of the Church - and the Judge - sentenced them to death and He killed them.
That's the reason why great fear fell upon the church.
How can you see it any other way?
I can see it any other way because it is not stated that way. If one is of the presupposition that God is a rampaging avenger, going around wiping out people for an individual lie, then perhaps it is a natural assumption.
For supposed biblical literalists, you two (Roger, Larry) seem to be making some pretty good leaps in assumptions without much in the way of biblical support.
You've still offered no biblical reason to assume why we should break our fairly straightforward commands from Jesus other than some examples (examples, not commands).
And Roger, as I've already explained a few times, Jesus on Earth had a different role than God. For one thing, Jesus on Earth left us an example to follow.
We can't follow God's example - we're not Gods. But we are left an example in Jesus that we are told specifically we ARE to follow. THAT's the difference - or at least one difference - between Jesus-on-Earth and Jesus-as-God: the Role he played.
>I can see it any other way because it is not stated that way. If one is of the presupposition that God is a rampaging avenger, going around wiping out people for an individual lie, then perhaps it is a natural assumption.
Dan, was God not in control during these incidents? Did Satan pull a fast one on God? Really - what happened here? Was it an accident? How about the Flood? Or any other time that God judged the people?
>For supposed biblical literalists, you two (Roger, Larry) seem to be making some pretty good leaps in assumptions without much in the way of biblical support.
This is not about literalism (for you could be called a 'literalist' for saying scripture defines God as love - when the broader context shows that was a stated attribute and not a definition). Same goes for Michael as he seems to be extracting Jesus from the nature of the God-head during his earthly ministry despite what we read elsewhere when Jesus replies to folks who wanted to see the Father.
>And Roger, as I've already explained a few times, Jesus on Earth had a different role than God. For one thing, Jesus on Earth left us an example to follow.
You and Michael are making moral arguments which relate to God's nature. They don't change.
>Jesus on Earth left us an example to follow.
Yes, but that was not the reason He came. He come to die on the cross for our sins. If we have a gospel that teaches anything other than that as the reason Jesus came - then we've been deceived as scripture does not teach any other reason than that.
"You and Michael are making moral arguments which relate to God's nature. They don't change."
We're making arguments which relate to Jesus' example which he left for us to follow. It doesn't change.
Dan,
Okay, how did Ananias and Saphira die?
Why did great fear fall upon the church?
First: Where do you find biblical justification for waging war against enemies (even killing their children in the process) that outweighs our commands from Jesus (love enemies, overcome evil with good, turn the other cheek)?
Dan,
"These deaths are not attributed to God in the text, it is something that you're implying, is it not, Larry?"
You wrote the above statement after you had listed the scriptures from Acts 5: 1-11.
Now, you want to run down a bunny trail and hide behind a bush. While you're there, check our Acts 12:23. This is where an angel of the Lord kills Herod. Remember, angels only do the Lord's will (Psalm 103:20).
And also, how about Jesus threatening to kill the prophetess Jezebel's children if she didn't repent (Revelation 2:23).
Roger:"Dan, was God not in control during these incidents? Did Satan pull a fast one on God? Really - what happened here? Was it an accident?"
I too was puzzled by this and was quite ready to write it off as just more cherry picking of the acts of God/Jesus/Holy Spirit on the part of the pacifist.
But, praise be, I read on and the brilliancy of Dan's theology finally struck me! Dan's not cherry picking at all. In his theology there are is apparently the good, peace at any price, beatific Jesus who gave all the platitudes about forgiveness and love. But there is also his evil twin the Bad Jesus who goes about bumping off the likes of Ananias and Sapphira.
Then when the theologians show up at the scene of the crime, Dan can speak for the Good Jesus and tell all of you, "Ah, eh, it was .... ah ... an accident! Yeah, that's the ticket, it was an accident."
"In his theology there are is apparently the good, peace at any price, beatific Jesus who gave all the platitudes about forgiveness and love."
While this is written tongue-in-cheek, I'll nonetheless restate my position that I've never indicated believing in "peace at any price" - no matter how many times peacemakers are smeared with that charge. We believe in the simple proposition of standing up to evil BUT refusing to kill innocent bystanders as part of any such plan.
And what part of "Jesus left us an example that we are to follow" is not making sense?
Dan,
"In his theology there is apparently the good, peace at any price, beatific Jesus who gave all the platitudes about forgiveness and love. But there is also his evil twin the Bad Jesus who goes about bumping off the likes of Ananias and Sapphira."
When I read Eleutheros' comment about the GOOD JESUS and the BAD JESUS, I laughed and laughed. That is brilliant! Absolutely brilliant.
It totally reflects, in a tongue-in-cheek manner, your view of Jesus' character.
I get the humor, and it is quite funny.
And yet it also totally reflects the reality in the Bible. Not Good Jesus/Bad Jesus, but Jesus as man/shepherd/example and Jesus as God.
>These deaths are not attributed to God in the text, it is something that you're implying, is it not, Larry?
>And, I'll bother to repeat what I've already answered, it is certainly not the work of the Man-God Jesus who walked this earth for some 33 years preaching non-violent peacemaking, among other things.
I think I'm understanding what the argument is now. It's about following Jesus externally and not getting to know Him personally (whether you realize that or not). Larry and I are making arguments about the nature of Jesus (see Heb 1:3, Col 2:9) and you correct us and say that this is not about His nature but merely what external actions He did (As Dan clarified:"We're making arguments which relate to Jesus' example").
So, my question is: Are we interested in following Jesus w/o getting to know Him? What gain is following Jesus if we don't come to the cross first? As Michael has stated before, he believes the cross was not so much about atonement as it was a result of Jesus' nonviolent ways - with His resurrection being the vindication of His life. Again - that coincides with the error of stressing a social gospel at the expense of a spiritual one - in other words, following Jesus instead of coming to the cross first. Scripture states that Jesus came to be the propitiation for our sins. Yes, His life is an example, but that's no help to us unless we come to the cross first. There is only One who has ever lived the Christian life - and we can only do it when His Spirit is inside of us and working in and through us. See why it's imperative that we not neglect the spiritual aspects of the Gospel as it truly is the dynamic upon which everything else depends?
Dan,
I said:
"I forget that you package Jesus the Man as being differerent from Jesus the risen Lord and Christ."
You replied:
"You appear to speak this in jest..."
Now you say:
"And yet it also totally reflects the reality in the Bible. Not Good Jesus/Bad Jesus, but Jesus as man/shepherd/example and Jesus as God."
So, after all of this, you do agree with my assumption that you package Jesus the Man as different from Jesus the risen Lord and Christ?
Yes, yes, yes - a hundred times, yes!
It is the same Jesus, there is one God.
BUT Jesus on earth was here as an example for us, the Bible says this. Do you disagree and on what basis?
No, clearly the Bible teaches us that Jesus came and suffered for us, "leaving an example that we might follow in his steps..."
It is not God's steps we are to follow in, because God is God and we can't be God. God's role is different than your or my role. We are not called to be little gods.
We ARE called to follow in Jesus' human steps (in relationship to Jesus and the Church, Roger - we don't follow Jesus merely to try to follow Jesus but because we have a relationship to Jesus). The Jesus who taught nonviolent resistence and peacemaking. The Jesus that NEVER taught war-as-solution, but something Other.
And now, I'm finished repeating myself to address the same point to the same people.
I like following Jeremiah's (or was it Isaiah) example, who was called to walk around naked to point out a message of God.
I like to do the same thing, except wear a trench coat and reveal myself to the chosen few.
Dan,
Thanks for your patience; I appreciate your efforts.
I believe that anybody who reads all of the comments can make a decision concerning you and me (and whoever else). But without a doubt, the champion statement was written by Eleutheros with his GOOD JESUS and BAD JESUS.
I looked forward to these prolonged dialogues in the future.
>BUT Jesus on earth was here as an example for us, the Bible says this. Do you disagree and on what basis?
The Bible says that this is not the reason Jesus came. Jesus was an example to us as He was on earth and interacting with His creation on our level (so it was visible and historical), yet that was not the reason He came. If we miss the reason why He came, then His life is of no use to us because we can't live the life He lived. He lived a life filled by the Holy Spirit. We're spiritually DEAD (not just weak, not just in need of an example, but spritually DEAD). We can't do it in our own strength.
>No, clearly the Bible teaches us that Jesus came and suffered for us, "leaving an example that we might follow in his steps..."
Are you stressing this again because you believe this is WHY He came?
>We ARE called to follow in Jesus' human steps
Yes, but in whose strength? Ours or the Holy Spirit? How do we get the Holy Spirit in our lives? After all, they're called fruits of the Spirit, and not fruits of the followers, right? How can the spiritually DEAD become alive?
I don't see it as either/or. Jesus came to give us life, to set us free, to preach good news to the poor, to proclaim liberty to the captive, to set an example for us, to show us the Way to live.
I don't see it as ONLY this one thing, but all of the above, if we want to take the Bible for what it says.
1 Peter 2, for instance:
"For to this you have been called, because Christ also suffered for you, leaving you an example, so that you might follow in his steps... He himself bore our sins in his body on the tree, that we might die to sin and live to righteousness."
=====
According to the Bible here, we have been able to die to sin because of Jesus AND we are called to follow in his steps.
Both. Not either/or.
"I like to do the same thing, except wear a trench coat and reveal myself to the chosen few."
Chance, keep your revelations to yourself...
Dan said>Jesus came to give us life
How? I'm serious, and not trying to waste your time. This is critical that we get to the bottom of this.
Dan said>to show us the Way to live
Jesus is The Way, not an example of the Way. See the difference? The former means it's not me, the latter means it's still up to me. As I stated before, Jesus lived a life filled with the Holy Spirit. We're spiritually DEAD. How can the spiritually dead be made alive?
Dan said>According to the Bible here, we have been able to die to sin because of Jesus AND we are called to follow in his steps.
'Because of Jesus' - what do you mean by that?
Again, we're still not clear on the question of WHY Jesus came. What does scripture say is the reason WHY Jesus came? Everything, literally our whole understanding of scripture, hinges on a truthful understanding of this question and answer.
Last time, Roger, as this is off-topic and we've covered all this ground before:
"What does scripture say is the reason WHY Jesus came?"
The Bible gives all sorts of reasons. Jesus himself said he came that we might have life and have it more abundantly. Jesus also said that he'd come to preach good news to the poor, liberty to the captive, the day of jubilee, etc.
It's not that I don't know what you want me to say (Jesus-came-to-take-our-sins-upon-himself -that-we-might-have-everlasting-life, etc, etc, etc) and that IS one of the things that one can cull out of reading the Bible.
I'm just not limiting God to that one cherry-picked theme.
I choose all of the above.
And, as such (and ON topic) I choose following Jesus' peacemaking Way as the correct way to live.
I think I understand what you're saying.
So....Why did Jesus have to die on the cross?????
>And, as such (and ON topic) I choose following Jesus' peacemaking Way as the correct way to live.
Why did Jesus have to die for us to follow this peacemaking Way?
It's not just that Jesus is our example, although that is certainly true, but that Jesus is the full revelation of WHO GOD IS as it says in Heb. 1:1. That's why the idea that we can ignore Jesus' peacemaking commands, etc. and focus on other things is totally bogus. Revelation says the same thing in pictures: John the Seer sees the Lion of Judah (traditional symbol of the promised Messiah and a military image) and BEHOLD is the Lamb slain before the foundations of the world. Message: We have NO other Messiah, no other Savior, than Jesus the Crucified.
The Rider on the White Horse (Who is specifically called the Word of God and whose Name is Faithful and True) rides out to war with the Kings of the Earth (i.e., with nation-states and empires--and no exceptions for the U.S. or other "chosen nations") slays them with the "sword of his mouth," i.e., they are conquered by evangelism, by mission. Violent, warlike imagery, but nonviolent content.
Jesus the peacemaker, the Crucified tells us WHO GOD IS. We cannot, like Larry, use images and metaphors of God throughout Scripture and try to fit Jesus into that mold. That's backwards. Jesus is the hermeneutical key, our Rosetta Stone, for understanding God. So, if we have to reinterpret images like King, Warrior, and Judge through the lense provided by Jesus, we do so. NOT the other way around.
Breaking my rule of ignoring roger, he said, "As Michael has stated before, he believes the cross was not so much about atonement as it was a result of Jesus' nonviolent ways - with His resurrection being the vindication of His life." This is wrong. It is a false dichotomy. If we look at human causes for Jesus' crucifixion, at the motives of Pilate, the temple elite, etc., from THAT VIEWPOINT the cross is the natural outcome of Jesus' nonviolent resistance to the Empire and its Client kings and the cooperative Temple elites. And the resurrection IS God's vindication of Jesus--God's proclamation that Jesus' Way is right, not that of those who killed him.
But that is not an alternative to the cross as atonement (reconciliation) between humans and God. The atonement gives universal, cosmic significance to this. It is victory over sin, including the sin of violence. All the things that Paul or Hebrews, etc. says about the cross is a reading it from a cosmic, theological perspective. And I affirm that--but the cross is not, cannot be ONLY the means of our salvation if it is not ALSO and AT THE SAME TIME the pattern of our discipleship.
Roger is also wrong (when is he otherwise?) in saying that I stress a social gospel at the expense of a spiritual one. They are one and the same. As for "following Jesus before coming to the cross," that's exactly what the disciples did. Roger commits the ancient heresy of docetism--instead of claiming that Jesus is fully God and fully human, he attempts to have a Jesus that is only divine. Therefore, he can have a cosmic "spiritual" cross that is unrelated to the social forces which crucified Jesus--and sees the teachings of Jesus as an optional extra to individual salvation. It's heresy. Condemned for nearly 2000 years.
>That's why the idea that we can ignore Jesus' peacemaking commands, etc. and focus on other things is totally bogus.
I'm not (and I doubt Larry is either) asking for you to ignore scripture, but to look at all of it to see the big picture. God has many attributes, and He doesn't violate one to exhibit another (A.W. Tozer wrote a small, but deep book on the attributes of God called 'Knowledge of the Holy' - I recommend it). For example, God is a God of love - but we all desire that He's a God of Justice too when it comes time for mass-murderers to stand before the judgement throne, right?
Using Jesus to help us understand the OT, what are we to make of the animal sacrifices - where life was sacrificed in order to pay for sins?
>As for "following Jesus before coming to the cross," that's exactly what the disciples did.
I don't understand. How could the disciples come to the cross before it had happened?
Michael said:>but the cross is not, cannot be ONLY the means of our salvation if it is not ALSO and AT THE SAME TIME the pattern of our discipleship.
I don't understand what you're saying here. Please clarify - thanks!
Roger, I don't how to clarify. Communicating with you has been one of the most frustrating experiences of my life which is why I mostly stopped. Your words are English, but we seem to speak another language anyway. But let me try this link and see if it helps: http://www.kencollins.com/disc-49.htm
I would not phrase things exactly as the author there does, but it might be a bridge between us.
Trying one more time. After this, I just give up. Roger: For those who have "come to the cross," as you put it, whose sins are conquered through the atonement, will live the same kind of nonviolent, simple, anti-imperial, anti-dominating lives that got Jesus killed--and that can get us killed, too. If we are NOT living that kind of cross-shaped discipleship, then it is doubtful that the cross has had any salvific effect for us.
See this link to someone who is trying to bridge between your language and that I am more familiar with:
http://www.kencollins.com/disc-49.htm
Interesting link, Michael.
OK. I'm graduating to Danism 201 (as a student, not an adherent).
So the deal is that God/Jesus may have many attributes and roles, we are not enjoined to mimic God or the Divine Jesus, which (within the Christian paradigm, but not others) is just as well because it isn't possible anyway.
Rather we are to mimic Jesus the incarnate man.
Very good.
But is non-violence the essence of that imitation?
First, as has been pointed out, Jesus was on occasion a bit violent (driving out the money changers, cursing the fig tree, and I not sure the SPCSB (Society for Prevention of Cruelty to Supernatural Beings) would have approved of all that casting out business).
But also Jesus lived during very peaceful times. Much of his advice in matters is down to earth practical such as don't seat yourself at the head of the table and be embarrassed when they ask you to go lower down in the seating, but rather seat yourself at the lowest station and look good when they ask you to move up the table.
So I wonder how much of his advice against violence isn't likewise practical at its heart. Stir up trouble in a society (Roman Palestine) where the peace is strictly enforced and the results would be dire. Jesus didn't traffic nearly as much with non-Jews as he did with Jews most of whom were not in a position to be dealing with violence one way or the other.
But beyond that, if we are to imitate Jesus the Man, let's for the moment concede the nonviolence as given. OK. What else?
Now I don't want to divert the discussion on this point so let me say I don't have a strong opinion and certainly no dog in the fight, but how long was Jesus' ministry? Some put it as long as 13 years and what I've heard the most often through the years is 3 years. Both of these are based on the date of the death of Herod which for many years was viewed as being 4 B.C.E. and some, of course, put it earlier. Now it is widely accepted that Herod died in 1 B.C.E. (and in doing the math, remember that there is no year 0, the next year after 1 B.C.E. is the year 1 C.E. .... or B.C. and A.D. if that's the shorthand you use) Although the years of Herod's reign are in some question, the reign of Tiberius isn't. Since so many historians put Herod's death and Jesus' birth in the year 1 B.C.E., that means that Jesus ministry was one year long.
One year long. Before that time it seems he earned his living with his own hands plying a useful trade making wooden farm implements. Then for a very small percent of his life, one year out of more than thirty, he took up his cause and said what he had to say.
Had the crucifixion not taken place, would he have continued for many years? An entirely useless question. He in fact didn't.
So let's imitate that as well, let's take that as our example and model. Flap one's gums espousing one's religious message for no more a span of time than 1/30th of one's life and then only after having earned your keep doing something useful all the time before that. And, like Jesus, forgo all remuneration for doing so except the clothes on your back and that day's food.
Otherwise the subscriber to Danism isn't following Jesus example at all.
Do I get an Amen!
Michael,
I read that link. I guess my reply to folks who are worried about stuff like that would be as one theologian has stated: "The truth is always good even when the vehicle in which it rides is homely and plain."
Communicating scriptural principles in love is the goal (as I'm sure is your goal as well). And we don't want to forget that salvation is a work of God. We don't want to try to do the work that only the Holy Spirit can.
One glaring omission from this article. Where is the mention of the Holy Spirit? The Holy Spirit inhabits the believer and is the dynamic by which we live the Christian life. The Christian life is about obedience to the Spirit and not us working to transform this old flesh in our own strength - which can't be done. The writer spends all that time talking about what the Christian life is and only mentions the Holy Spirit when he quotes Acts 2:38. Have we forgotten that the Holy Spirit is part of the Godhead and He's living within the believer? It's reality - the believer doesn't have to wait for Heaven to experience God - He's indwelling them from the point of conversion on!
>If we are NOT living that kind of cross-shaped discipleship, then it is doubtful that the cross has had any salvific effect for us.
By the way, what does 'salvific' mean?
By what means can born-again believers mature? Aren't the ways the same as they've been since the Cross itself? Namely - obedience to the Holy Spirit, prayer, study of God's word, and church fellowship, right?
I see some challenges to that though. Not everyone who attends church are actually born-again believers, so therefore they don't have the Holy Spirit, are not saved, and are trying to do the impossible - live a Christian life without being in Christ. Also, if churches aren't preaching the whole counsel of scripture, their view of God and His nature can be incorrect, leading to all sorts of errors. Thirdly, prayer can be hampered by sin in our lives (even if something really is a sin despite what we've been told) or as Prov. 28:9 states - disobedience to God's Word can hinder our prayers as well.
Roger, end of preachy time. Comments on topic, please.
Eleutheros, a tentative, Amen.
Dan,
We're talking about discipleship, right? The specifics may be God, the Bible and peacemaking - but the core issue is discipleship. For someone to be a true disciple, they have to be a believer (remember Judus was a model disciple on the outside, but externals get us nowhere). I brought up some barriers to discipleship - whether it is people in the church trying to live the Christian life w/o the Holy Spirit, or the fact that God won't and can't bless sin - therefore if we have sin in our lives, our prayers and growth are hindered. I don't believe that is off topic at all - I think it's very relevant. These things are very helpful because they apply to me, you, and folks we sit beside in the pews each week. The enemy would love for us to not understand the barriers to discipleship (as he will not only fight to keep people from coming to Christ, even if they come to Christ, he'll fight to keep them from growing) - so when you say 'stop preaching' - that's exactly what the enemy wants us to do!
I repeat:
There are examples in the Bible where it appears that God is telling people to kill children. Shall we do this? When shall we do it? When we hear voices telling us to kill children? When our gov’t tells us it’s time to kill children?
Do you see the horrifying problem with implying commands or license from actions that happen in the OT when no such command exists for you and for me?
If you want to talk discipleship and be on topic, address these questions, thanks.
Dan said:>There are examples in the Bible where it appears that God is telling people to kill children. Shall we do this? When shall we do it?
Is that a principle that we are to follow? The Holy Spirit indwells the believer. Is He telling believers to do that now?
Dan said:>When we hear voices telling us to kill children?
Are you hearing voices telling you do that?
Dan said:>When our gov’t tells us it’s time to kill children?
Is our government telling us 'It's time to kill children' ?
Our gov't is telling us that we must take actions that will lead to us dropping bombs, regrettably, on children and innocent bystanders.
Will you join me in condemning this policy?
Is killing children a principle we should follow? Hell, no! So, I'm wondering for our bible believers out there, under what circumstances do they find it acceptable to bomb places where children are located? And what biblical reasoning do you find to support that idea?
>There are examples in the Bible where it appears that God is telling people to kill children. Shall we do this?
Are you referreing to the OT law? If you are under the new covenant, then it doesn't make any sense to argue for the letter of the law.
>Our gov't is telling us that we must take actions that will lead to us dropping bombs, regrettably, on children and innocent bystanders.
>Will you join me in condemning this policy?
Detroit is manufacturing automobiles that will lead to the deaths of thousands each year on the highways in auto accidents - regrettably killing children and innocent bystanders. Are you saying we should condemn the manufacturing of cars?
Fair is fair, right? Or maybe a fallen world is not fair (aren't we glad grace isn't fair!). Maybe death happens and sometimes we can't point the finger at anything other than sin - even though our human nature tries to find someone to blame.
Who is to blame for the deaths mentioned by Jesus in Luke 13:4?
"Or those eighteen who died when the tower in Siloam fell on them—do you think they were more guilty than all the others living in Jerusalem?"
>So, I'm wondering for our bible believers out there, under what circumstances do they find it acceptable to bomb places where children are located?
Like soccer fields, crowded markets, etc? Are you talking about the suicide bombers? I'm not aware of our military bombing soccer fields or crowded markets. You are talking about intent - and definitely, suicide bombers are intentionally targeting women and children.
"Are you saying we should condemn the manufacturing of cars?"
Actually, this is a losing argument with me, as I AM saying we ought to take actions that would deflate the 1 million deaths that occur annually due to auto wrecks. Not a ban, mind you, but responsible policy and personal responsibility.
"Maybe death happens and sometimes we can't point the finger at anything other than sin - even though our human nature tries to find someone to blame."
We chose to drop bombs on cities in WWII (Dresden, Hiroshima, Nagasaki, famously) and continue to do so today. We do this knowing that civilians will die. Children will die.
We make the decision that it is worth it. I stand by my suggestion that we ought not engage in activities and policies that we know will lead to widespread slaughter. That doing so is wrong.
Where, in the Bible Roger, do you find support for overcoming evil with brute force?
Dan,
"Where, in the Bible, do you find support for overcoming evil with brute force?"
Here's a good scripture:
"These are the nations that the Lord left in the land to test those Israelites who had not experienced the wars of Canaan. He did this to teach warfare to generations of Israelites who had no experience in battle. (Judges 3:1-2)
And this one:
"Blessed be the Lord my rock, who trains my hands for war, and my fingers for battle." (Psalm 144:1)
Why do you think God wanted to teach Israel warfare? So, they could defend themselves. Period.
Dan, you bring up Hiroshima and Nagasaki again. Are you saying that you would have rather have had 1,000,000 American soldiers die and another 2-3,000,000 Japanese civilians and soldiers die than drop the two bombs on these two cities? Japan accepted unconditional surrender right after these bombs!
Actually, Japan was already contemplating surrender before the bombs and were definitely ready to surrender after the first bomb.
The truth is, we don't know HOW many people may have died or lived if we hadn't nuked those two cities. We had already bombed plenty of other towns and that hadn't in and of itself brought surrender.
What we DO know is that we were sufficiently fearful of what would happen ("a million Americans might die! Maybe two million!") that we decided that it would be okay to drop bombs and kill hundreds of thousands of men, women and children.
I'm calling that cowardly and wrong. I don't see Jesus flying that plane and letting loose of those bombs - ON TOP OF A CHURCH BUILDING! - to "win." Do you?
"Why do you think God wanted to teach Israel warfare? So, they could defend themselves. Period."
Thanks for at least trying to provide some biblical reasoning. So you've found and provided two verses in which violence as a solution seems to be advocated. I might add Psalm 137: 9, in which the Psalmist says "Happy [are those] that takes and dashes your little ones against the rock."
Let's go further and assume that these are, as they seem, instances of God endorsing violence.
My question to you is: Why do you think these three examples (which are NOT commands to us, but examples of violence in the OT), outweigh Jesus' command AND example to us to overcome evil with good and to turn the other cheek and to love our enemy?
And, assuming we reject Jesus' teaching in favor of the OT teaching cited, at what point shall we happily dash their little ones' heads against the rocks?
>We chose to drop bombs on cities in WWII (Dresden, Hiroshima, Nagasaki, famously) and continue to do so today
It's incorrect to say that the church condones the dropping of the atomic bombs on cities instead of targeting the combatants. And it's also incorrect to say that our military is in principle doing that same thing today. Modern war is so technical and surgical that we go out of our way to find the combatants in amongst the population.
>Where, in the Bible Roger, do you find support for overcoming evil with brute force
Sometimes sin requires drastic measures. Look at the Cross. That was pretty ugly and brutal wasn't it? Surely there was some peaceful resolution for God to atone for our sin, right? Who sent Jesus to the Cross? It was the Father, right (Matthew 26:42)? Why? Because sometimes, what is necessary to combat sin - is what is necessary to combat sin.
Note: God knew the harsh reality of the Cross before Jesus came to earth.
Yet God KNEW what what was coming, and chose to do it for us anyway.
So, you're saying bloodshed is always avoidable? If that was the case, God would have never shed His own blood for us! If even God couldn't avoid the effect of Sin in His own body, why should we expect that we will find a world where we can avoid the effects of sin?(where war is always avoidable, where bystanders don't die in auto accidents, where students don't get shot at school, etc.)
Please don't misunderstand what I'm saying here. I'm not a warmonger. I'm not waving a banner for war. I'm not for military aggression. I'm just saying that a sin fallen world makes life unfair, and unsafe at times, and sometimes war is unavoidable to protect people in a world where man still has free will and man is still sinful.
To pray and work for peace is what we should do.
To believe that militaries are unnecessary or inherently immoral - is not biblical.
Dan,
"I'm calling that cowardly and wrong..."
Americans suffered 27,909 casualties at Iwo Jima; 15,000 at Guadalcanal; 3,500 at Pearl Harbor; 2,000 at Corregidor; and what about the Bataan Death March?
How corrageous of you to sit there and call the American soldiers cowardly and wrong when their blood was spilled from Pearl Harbor throughout the Pacific Ocean so that you can sit safely in your home and blog!!
Usually, you aren't this over the top. So, maybe you are just having a bad hair day, right?
To be clear: I think it is cowardly and immoral to attack civilians. ESPECIALLY if there are children involved.
We think that to be the case when it's "terrorists" doing the attacking. To say that is true for them but not for us is exactly the sort of moral relativism that so-called liberals are freqently targeted with.
Dan, these people will never understand you because they worship the idol of American nationalism. They are as lost to gospel reasoning as the German Christians who put swastikas on their pulpits. I am NOT saying that they are Nazis. I am saying that their minds are clearly enthralled--just as the German Christians were--to an ideology of violence and national pride that is so all-pervading that they would be unable to understand gospel nonviolence, no matter what.
In these cases reasoned arguments are useless. Larry and Roger need an encounter with the true Christ. I speak as one who had just such an encounter and became a conscientious objector-refusing to wear a uniform or pick up a weapon ever again. Sometimes, reason and biblical argument can help. This is clearly not one of those cases. They cannot even understand you.
Michael,
I was thinking about your question about 'coming to the cross' and how that lingo was confusing for you.
Let me clarify by saying it means to 'repent of your sin.'
That's what seperates the merely 'religious', from the born-again believer. Many people want eternal life and Heaven, but not every one wants to repent of sin. Some people want to determine what does and doesn't make up the Gospel, others accept God's word as Truth and bow the knee.
Michael,
"Dan, these people will never understand you because they worship the idol of American nationalism. They are as lost to gospel reasoning as the German Christians who put swastikas on their pulpits...."
"Larry and Roger need an encounter with the true Christ.."
If I have ever personally challenged your commitment to Jesus, forgive me; and I mean that from the bottom of my heart. This is something that I never want to do. Okay?
And as far as a person being a peacemaker or not, be a peacemaker. You will blessed for doing it, okay? The blessing from the Lord should be more than enough for anyone.
But when you shout across the internet that other Christians who do not hold your narrow interpretation of scriptures are sinners or even compare them to German Christians who put swastikas on their pulpits, this exposes to everyone who you really are. Doesn't it?
Michael, even if we can't come to common ground with some of our brothers here, there may be others for whom this conversation is instructive and informative. It has been for me, for instance.
"But when you shout across the internet that other Christians who do not hold your narrow interpretation of scriptures are sinners..."
Isn't this a complaint also commonly tossed towards "liberals"? Which is it: Should we hold close to those teachings in the Bible that we believe to be central to the Good News Jesus came to preach or should we say, "believe what you want...it's all good"?
"If I have ever personally challenged your commitment to Jesus, forgive me"
I don't believe you ever have, Larry. You've been quite gracious that way and I appreciate it.
Nor do I question your commitment to Jesus. Perhaps your interpretation of Jesus and his teachings, but not your commitment.
Dan,
Thanks for your gracious words.
Charles Spurgeon said, "The biggest hindrance for Christianity is not the opponents of the Bible but rather the proponents."
Yes, we have disagreements; and I don't really that's a big deal with God. But in our disagreements, we always need to remember that Christ lives inside those believers we disagree with too.
I think the error comes in trying to put God into a box, of taking the view the he is inflexible, when the Bible shows him to be entirely flexible.
He goes to the Garden with followers carrying swords, commands us to give money into the war coffers of our leaders, smashes the tables of the money changers and in the same breath preaches that we should be the peacemakers. He commands honesty and yet highlights a moment of dishonesty as righteousness. He's the God of love that will cast billions into the lake of fire to suffer forever.
It's the fool's errand of the ages: the desire to put Christ into a box and to pretend that for every situation he has but one answer.
Just to clarify:
He goes to the Garden with followers carrying maybe TWO swords,
commands us to give to Caesar what is Caesar's,
and yes, smashes the tables of the money changers who were oppressing the poor and in the same breath preaches that we should be the peacemakers.
Perhaps part of our is an attempt to put God in a box, but part of the problem may be our difficulties in understanding peacemaking. Too often, being "peaceful" is confused with being passive, which in turn, is assumed to mean a milquetoast.
And yet, another part of the problem is to assume that the norms and traditions we've grown up with (war is sometimes a godly thing to do, sometimes we need to kill innocent people, our nuking of two whole cities was a good thing because of this reason or that, etc) when our norms and traditions aren't always right nor righteous.
Dan,
"and yes, smashes the tables of the money changers who were oppressing the poor..."
These are little things that I notice. Agenda driven Christians can only see their agendas.
When Jesus turned over the tables of the money changers, what was His reason for doing that? Was it because the temple was oppressing the poor? Scripture does not say that.
Instead it state: "My Father's house is a house of prayer but you are making it into a robbers' den."
Additions like this slant reasoning your way when scripture does not infer it at all.
From John 2:
And he found in the temple those that sold oxen and sheep and doves, and the changers of money sitting:
and he made a scourge of cords, and cast all out of the temple, both the sheep and the oxen; and he poured out the changers' money, and overthrew their tables;
and to them that sold the doves he said, Take these things hence; make not my Father's house a house of merchandise.
The people came to Jerusalem from all over bringing their required offerings. The moneychangers and merchants were in the temple to sell the people "unblemished" doves and offerings because inevitably, the offering the people brought would be found to be blemished.
It was a racket. It was designed to fleece the yokels. And it was taking part in the temple and with the participation of the chief priests.
It was especially harmful to the poor. They were being ripped off by the religious.
THIS is why Jesus was angry. Do you suppose he was just angry because they were selling stuff in church? I suppose that's the standard line most churches feed folk these days, but it's missing the context of what was the daily reality.
Here's a reference.
This is not any "leftist" interpretation - as I understand it, it's fairly well accepted.
A reference??
Here are a lot of details about how Jewish officials acted and what their secret deals were 2000 years ago. Hmmmmm .... just how does the 'reference' know this?
Is the reference like the fellow in the song:
I was born about ten thousand years ago
And there ain't nothing in this world that I don't know..
Otherwise is this 'reference' just historical speculation?
It is odd to me how much we read into the very scant amount of first hand witness' testimony and that transmitted precariously through the ages. We know from a few descriptions and inscriptions and archeological finds what people were thinking, what motivated them, what were their fears and concerns, and what they had for breakfast on any given day.
I've heard this same interpretation from many theologians, not necessarily "liberal" ones. The one I cited was just the first one I happened upon, I don't know anything about that particular site.
Just repeating what I've heard repeatedly.
Dan,
The money changers were ripping off everyone - not just the poor. That is the point I'm making.
You looked at the scriptures through your agenda and made an assumption that is not there.
You do not have to embellish scripture to make it into something that it is not. It's powerful as it is.
Just so you know, whatever box a Christian is in, is how he usually views the Bible. You are not the exception.
Sure.
But the poor thing is a deliberate stance with me. Because I read the bible and find front to back God's great concern for the poor and marginalized. Especially the poor and marginalized.
God loves everyone, of course, but you can't read the Bible objectively and fail to notice a repeated emphasis on how we treat the least of these. It's one of the great themes of the Bible.
It's what the Catholics (or at least some) call, God's "Preferential option" for the poor and vulnerable.
And if it's a good enough theme heavily repeated throughout old and new testaments, I figure it's a theme that we ought to repeat. So I often use places like the cleansing of the temple to point it out.
Daan,
Better yet, use John 11:35. Then you can just go off on your tangents explaining why. You know - the poor, peacemaking, etc.
"Therefore, because you impose heavy rent on the poor And exact a tribute of grain from them, Though you have built houses of well-hewn stone, Yet you will not live in them; You have planted pleasant vineyards, yet you will not drink their wine. For I know your transgressions are many and your sins are great, You who distress the righteous and accept bribes, And turn aside the poor in the gate."
~Amos
I reckon we better tell Amos (and ALL those other prophets who kept singling out the poor as the oppressed when obviously the oppressors were charging unjust money to everyone! Why would they keep on (and keep on and keep on and keep on) suggesting it was "just the poor" who were being oppressed.
Obviously, they were socialists and capitalist-haters.
Dan,
Woe Nelly! Back up here!
"...and yes, smashes the tables of the money changers who were oppressing the poor..."
This whole conversation started because of your above statement which is not true. And then, you said:
"But the poor thing is a deliberate stance with me. Because I read the bible and find front to back God's great concern for the poor and marginalized. Especially the poor and marginalized."
Then, I said in a tongue-in-cheek fashion, why not use John 11:35, "Jesus wept."
If you think it's okay to add and subtract from scriptures to make your point, take the shortest one - "Jesus wept."
Then, you won't have to type so much and you can fill in the reasons why Jesus wept - such as poverty, peacemaking, etc.
How did Amos enter in to this?
Dan:"Just repeating what I've heard repeatedly."
You do a lot of that, have you noticed?
It doesn't matter whether the theologian is liberal or Martian, inferring full blown, fleshed out stories like this from scant historical "fact" and then floating the story as if it were itself fact is a serious form o dishonesty. It is close to the objection that many non-Christians have about the Brethren, it doesn't matter if it is actually true or not, if it seems to support "God's side" then it's OK to pass it off as truth none the less. It gives the unwashed the impression that the true believer lingers longingly over the aroma and taste of a lie.
A few years ago when the local gendarmes weren't occupied with seeing terrorists behind every bush and tree as they are now, their target of choice was occult crime (shudder, thrill). One local Officer Whosit became the self educated and self proclaimed expert and investigated a cave where local teenagers hung out to drink and whatever. He reported finding clear evidence of occult activity because he found four stones arranged in a "Satanic pattern" and a large rock that showed evidence that someone had been lying on it. (I am making none of this up).
Like that much of "history" of Biblical times is inferred from very, very little physical and literary evidence and then fleshed out to fit the theology du jour.
Eleutheros, context matters and we all have to get our contextual bible information from somewhere. None of us were there to verify it personally.
I've read this commentary in several reputable sources and see no reason to doubt it. If you have additional info, by all means share.
It has the ring of truth to me.
Regardless of context, the money changers have been driven out for cheating and making the temple a "den of thieves." This would seem to suggest that they're cheating others out of money - including the poor, Larry.
And so my statement IS true, thank you very much. Or, I could say ripping off the poor, if you don't like the word "oppressing."
Michael,
"Even if we take the text quite literally, Larry, JESUS did not kill Ananias and Sapphira, GOD did. The text does not even say that the risen Christ killed them. It says that God judged them and they died--possibly from fright or self-accusation?"
Forgive me for waiting until now to point out how inaccurate the above statement is. It is totally wrong. From your theology, God is the meanie while Jesus is the good guy. But scripture backs me up.
You know how Dan is always saying that we need to obey the commands of Jesus, guess what Jesus commanded?
"And He [Jesus] commanded us [the apostles] to preach to the people, and to testify that it is He [Jesus] who was ordained by God to be Judge of the living and the dead. (Acts 10:42)
Jesus the Judge issued a verdict on Ananias and Saphira. The verdict was this: they are guilty; execute them (or kill them).
Now, did Jesus descend to earth and stick a sword in each of these two guilty people? Probably not. If we look at Acts 12:20-23, we see what most likely happened. An angel who obeys the Lord's word (Psalm 103:20) was most likely the being that carried out the sentence on Ananias and Saphira. But remember: the angel acted on the orders of Jesus.
Game. Set. And match on this point.
But there are many, many other points that need to be clarified. So, I will wander back to this posting every once in while. Because as Jesus said, "The truth sets us free."
Michael wrote:
Dan, these people will never understand you because they worship the idol of American nationalism. They are as lost to gospel reasoning as the German Christians who put swastikas on their pulpits. I am NOT saying that they are Nazis. I am saying that their minds are clearly enthralled--just as the German Christians were--to an ideology of violence and national pride that is so all-pervading that they would be unable to understand gospel nonviolence, no matter what.
In these cases reasoned arguments are useless. Larry and Roger need an encounter with the true Christ. I speak as one who had just such an encounter and became a conscientious objector-refusing to wear a uniform or pick up a weapon ever again. Sometimes, reason and biblical argument can help. This is clearly not one of those cases. They cannot even understand you.
I encounter so many Christians who either:
1. think that America was established by God and has his blessings in all ways at all times. Some quite literally wrap their crosses in American flags
or
2. think that hating America and critiquing it to the exclusion of all other nations and groups is what it means to be a Christian.
There's got to be a middle ground somewhere that is skeptical of all nations, but does not single out one for obsessive hatred. I like to think of myself as being in this middle ground.
And I don't mean to attach these groupings to anyone here at this blog. But I've seen these two groups a lot in other quarters.
Michael wrote:
So, I find it more difficult to separate gospel nonviolence from Christology, from Trinitarian faith, etc. than you appear to find it. Buddhists brag that Buddhism would be equally true if Siddartha Guatama the Buddha never existed. The idea that Gautama might be wholly legendary bothers no one I know in the Buddhist Peace Fellowship. Christianity is different: Ours is a very historical religion. We bet everything the gospel claim is true that the Creator entered creation, entered history, lived faithfully and redemptively, was betrayed and assassinated and that God raised him up again.
Amen! The teachings of Christ are valid and binding because it was Christ who made them. And there certainly is no atonement unless Christ was actually the Son of God.
Post a Comment