Preachers who do not advocate war from the pulpit

User avatar
Homer
Posts: 2995
Joined: Sat Aug 23, 2008 11:08 pm

Re: Preachers who do not advocate war from the pulpit

Post by Homer » Thu Nov 14, 2013 4:36 pm

Are you affirming that they could have been motivated by faithfulness to God, sans divine revelation being given to them to attack the Israelites? I do not see this could be possible.
No, purely hypothetical.
It is certainly not an easy question, however, my present understanding is that such activities are necessarily wrong without a divine revelation authorizing the use of the lethal force.
You have suggested that Genesis 9:6 might have served this revelatory purpose. If an explicit revelation is required (say, an audible voice from God), I think practically speaking almost none of the thousands of acts of war would be approved.

I see Romans 13:1-4 as a general principle expressing god's will, His approval of government acting on His behalf as long as they do so justly. Thus no special, case by case revelation needed.

User avatar
TheEditor
Posts: 814
Joined: Thu Sep 16, 2010 9:09 pm

Re: Preachers who do not advocate war from the pulpit

Post by TheEditor » Thu Nov 14, 2013 6:24 pm

Greetings,

The written history as recorded in the Scriptures, could be read to sanction or to approve one action or another. But, the question should be asked; does the declaration of a truth in human nature of neccesity mean that it has the divine stamp of approval? Consider the following possibility:

Genesis 9:6 does state that whoever sheds the blood of man, by man will his blood be shed. Does this mean that a moral imperative is being spelled out? Does this mean that man is required to shed blood where murder is commited? Consider that this may be a mere statement regarding the natural dynamic that comes into play when one commits the act of murder, namely, someone will avenge the death of the victim.

Interestingly, under the Mosaic Law, the nation of Israel had established the six cities of refuge. Under this arrangment, if someone unintentionally caused the death of his fellow man, he could flee to one of these cites (presumably the closest) to escape the wrath of the "avenger of blood", or next of kin. Note what would happen:

"But if he pushed him suddenly without enmity, or hurled anything on him without lying in wait or used a stone that could cause death, and without seeing him dropped it on him, so that he died, though he was not his enemy and did not seek his harm, then the congregation shall judge between the manslayer and the avenger of blood, in accordance with these rules. And the congregation shall rescue the manslayer from the hand of the avenger of blood, and the congregation shall restore him to his city of refuge to which he had fled, and he shall live in it until the death of the high priest who was anointed with the holy oil. But if the manslayer shall at any time go beyond the boundaries of his city of refuge to which he fled, and the avenger of blood finds him outside the boundaries of his city of refuge, and the avenger of blood kills the manslayer, he shall not be guilty of blood." (Numbers 35:23-27). Notice that the avenger of blood could, apparently, kill the one that caused the unintentional death of his next of kin, and not be found guilty of murder himself. Was God here saying that it is acceptable to murder someone that causes the accidental death of a family member? Or, was allowance merely being made for the (understandable) emotional reaction of the next of kin? It's interesting to contemplate.

Perhaps, then, God was not expressing an immutable truth, ot necessity, that life be given for life, but merely that "thus and so" will be the natural occurence when "thus and so" takes place.

Regards, Brenden.
[color=#0000FF][b]"It was for freedom that Christ set us free; therefore keep standing firm and do not be subject again to a yoke of slavery."[/b][/color]

thrombomodulin
Posts: 431
Joined: Sun Aug 24, 2008 6:59 am

Re: Preachers who do not advocate war from the pulpit

Post by thrombomodulin » Thu Nov 14, 2013 6:41 pm

Homer wrote:...as long as they do so justly...
Then there must be an answer to the question of when is it just, and when is it not just, for a governing official to kill. What circumstances do you think represent the just use of lethal force? After discussing the topic with Paidion, I created a yet unanswered thread with some cases that I think are worthy of consideration.

rcassell
Posts: 14
Joined: Mon Nov 04, 2013 12:58 pm

Re: Preachers who do not advocate war from the pulpit

Post by rcassell » Thu Nov 14, 2013 8:35 pm

Hi Pete:
No, I affirm that God has assigned the duty of capital punishment to civil governments for certain crimes, specified by Him.
Genesis 9:6 says, “Whoso sheddeth man’s blood, by man shall his blood be shed; for in the image of God made He man.” As I said, I believe that God does command the use of the death penalty.
Romans 13:4 says, “for he is the minister of God to thee for good. But if thou do that which is evil, be afraid, for he beareth not the sword in vain; for he is the minister of God, an avenger to execute wrath upon him that doeth evil.” While I believe that there is an allusion to capital punishment in this verse, Romans 13:1 - 4 cannot possibly be used as a defense for Christian participation in the military or in carrying out the death penalty. I will attempt to show what I mean. If we step back and look at the entire section in context, starting with chapter 12 and follow the flow of God’s revelation through chapter 13, then the application of Romans 13:1 – 4 looks very different. Some of the surrounding verses contain the following commands:

v. 12:10 Have kindly affection one for another with brotherly love, in honor preferring one another;
v. 12:13 given to hospitality
v. 12:14 Bless those who persecute you; bless and curse not.
v. 12:17 Recompense no man evil for evil.
v. 12:19 avenge not yourselves, but rather give place unto wrath;
v. 12:19 “Vengeance is Mine; I will repay,saith the Lord.”
v. 12:20 Therefore: “If thine enemy hunger, feed him; if he thirst, give him drink.
v. 12:21 overcome evil with good
v. 13:3 Do that which is good
v. 13:8 Owe no man anything, but to love one another, for he that loveth another hath fulfilled the law.
v. 13:9 Thou shalt not kill *************************
v. 13:9 Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself. **********
v. 13: 10 Love worketh no ill to his neighbor

None of the above commands allow for a Christian to take up arms and kill anyone. I think that these verses are quite sufficient to clearly refute the normal application of the verses from Romans 13. Most Christians allege that Romans 13 obligates them to serve in the military, and even kill people, if the government commands it, because according to verse 1, we are to “Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers.” They surmise that includes military service. However, the conclusion of all of the commands through those two chapters comes down to (Romans 13:9): “thou shalt not kill” and “thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself.” No one would wish for themselves to be bombarded with bombs and bullets from an attacking military force. Therefore, not only are the subjects of the command that Christians are to “be subject unto the higher powers” forbidden from killing anyone in verse 9, they are also commanded to positively love their neighbors. In context, Romans 13 is an absolute prohibition from Christians serving in the military, rather than an endorsement.

To get a Biblical understanding of God’s intention for the use of lethal force, I think that a good place to look is in the book of Numbers 35 or Joshua 20, where God gives directions for the cities of refuge. Of course those cities were safe havens for people who had killed others “unintentionally” and “unawares,” where they could flee for safety from the avenger of blood. The avenger had the authority to kill anyone outside of the city of refuge who had killed another person, whether the “slaying” was intentional or unintentional.

In Numbers 35:16, God gave the command “‘if he (the manslayer) smite him with an instrument of iron so that he die, he is a murderer: the murderer shall surely be put to death.” This command accounts for the verdict of the trial of a man who had killed someone intentionally – a man who was standing trial in the city of refuge, where he was protected from the avenger of blood until the verdict was rendered. However, after the guilty verdict was reached, the manslayer was evicted from the city of refuge into the hands of the avenger of blood. This can be seen in Numbers 35:19, “The avenger of blood himself shall slay the murderer….” Outside of the city of refuge, the avenger was given authority by God to kill all manslayers.

This Old Testament administration reflects God’s structure for vengeance in New Testament times also. In the New Testament, we are commanded to abide in Christ. There is safety from God’s judgment only as we abide in Christ. In the physical realm, the picture is virtually the same. If we abide in Christ, we will not participate in activities forbidden by God, including murder, rape, kidnapping, abortion, etc. These are all penalties that carry the death penalty under the law of God. If we cease to abide in Christ, and engage in these ungodly activities, we are then outside of the refuge afforded in Christ, and are then exposed to the vengeance given to the civil authorities. Such judgment is carried out by the world’s civil authorities, never by the church (or Christians.)

I believe that I have answered your questions. If not, please let me know where I fell short.


Have a nice evening,

Ron

rcassell
Posts: 14
Joined: Mon Nov 04, 2013 12:58 pm

Re: Preachers who do not advocate war from the pulpit

Post by rcassell » Thu Nov 14, 2013 9:48 pm

Hi Brendan:

As I continued to hear so called preachers quote the 6th commandment as "thou shalt not murder," I decided to do an Hebrew word study on the word that God used in the 6th commandment for "kill." In Exodus 20, the word is used in the verb form, translated as "kill." It might have more consistently been translated "thou shalt not manslay." The noun form of the word is used many times in the Numbers 35 and Joshua 20 sections concerning the cities of refuge. It is translated in those chapters as "manslayer." If you do the word study, you will see that the Lord speaks of "intentional" and "unintentional" manslayers in those chapters. But, the point that you mentioned in your post highlights a critical point in the matter of Christians and killing. If a man killed someone "unintentionally" and "unawares", then he was allowed to live. But, he had to stay in the city of refuge until the death of the high priest. If the manslaying was not deemed to be both unintentional and unawares, then the manslayer was turned over to the avenger of blood, and was killed by him. The city of refuge chapters prove that the 6th commandment forbids killing, both intentional and unintentional. By the letter of the law, the man who commits an unintentional manslaying would have been put of death. It would have been similar to the man who picked up a stick on the Sabbath and was put to death, or to Uriah who steadied the ark of the covenant and was struck dead by God, and many other instances that showed the severity of the law of Moses. But, the difference is that in the case of unintentional manslaying, God granted mercy that the person who broke the law accidentally and unawares, would be allowed to live due to the death of the high priest. However, he must abide in the city of refuge until the death of the high priest. In New Testament terms, we hell deserving sinners are granted refuge as long as we abide in our city of refuge, the Lord Jesus Christ. However, if we cease to abide in Him, and partake of the world, then we are liable unto God severe judgment.

Have a nice evening,

Ron

thrombomodulin
Posts: 431
Joined: Sun Aug 24, 2008 6:59 am

Re: Preachers who do not advocate war from the pulpit

Post by thrombomodulin » Sun Nov 17, 2013 11:05 am

Ron,

In your response you have affirmed two ideas that seem, at least to me, to be somewhat difficult to hold at the same time. The first is that the government ought to use lethal force against those who engage in wrongdoing, and the second is that Christians ought to respond to wrongdoing by loving their neighbor. This brings a few questions to mind, which I'm hoping you would be willing to answer:

First, since you affirm that government is a necessary and divinely ordained institution in society, then does it not follow that participation in it is a commendable act for non-believers? I raised earlier the idea that since we as Christians sometimes greatly benefit from non-believers using lethal force to "defend our freedoms"**, then I supposed that it be not be out of place to state our appreciation and gratitude for such non-Christian who have served us by doing so - in particular veterans of the military. Romans 13 specifically mentions giving honor to rulers. Do you agree that it is appropriate for Christians to display honor and appreciation of those veterans that are not a follower of Christ? If not, why not?

Second, whenever it has come about that a person was both a governing official, and a follower of Christ, it seems that he has been given inconsistent instructions about how to act in response to one who is engaged in wrongdoing. Is it necessary in your view that whenever a government official becomes a Christian, or a Christian obtains a position as a ruler, that such a person ought to be admonished to immediately resign in order to avoid the conflict?

Third, it can be argued that in Romans 13 Caesar is authorized to use force only upon those who are engaged in wrongdoing. Do you agree with this idea? If his authority is so limited, then what qualifies as wrongdoing is an important topic. A common assertion I have heard from those espousing the popular view is that each ruler has a right defend his own territory against other rulers are who seeking to expand their own territory. This leads, of course, to the notion of a defensive war where a ruler would be acting righteously to use lethal force against others. Is it at least theoretically possible that such a defensive war could meet with your approval? It seems, however, to me that one problem with the idea of rulers having a right to defend their realm is that it is difficult to establish that any one ruler has more of a "right" to rule over some particular people (or geographical area) more so than any other ruler making conflicting claims of ownership. A ruler might think that he has the right to rule over certain people - but how could he possibly know which people he really was really authorized by God to rule over? If he should impose upon those over whom he is not in fact a ruler (e.g. by backing taxation with lethal force), then is he not simply to be regarded as any another man engaged in wrongdoing (e.g. a powerful thief)? This leads to the problem of secession: If one regards 'consent of the people' as having any merit in establishing government authority, then it cannot be wrongdoing for men to withhold that consent from a ruler. Taking this to its logical conclusion undermines government authority altogether - since any man may find himself free of the burdens his ruler by unilaterally seceding from him. Thus, since you affirm government authority, I would like to ask if you also affirm that a ruler is authorized to use lethal force to prevent any individual or group of individuals over which he rules from peacefully seceding?

Pete

** Or if not, they may be defending us against other would be rulers who are more wicked than themselves, which I would appreciate.

rcassell
Posts: 14
Joined: Mon Nov 04, 2013 12:58 pm

Re: Preachers who do not advocate war from the pulpit

Post by rcassell » Sun Nov 17, 2013 4:05 pm

Hi Pete:

I could try again to answer your question. But, I expect that the answer would be no more convincing to you than the last one. You seem to have a pro-war or just war mindset.
The answer that I can give that might help some is to remind the brethren of a couple of points. The first is that Christianity is a matter of faith. As a former Calvinist, I used to believe that I could systematically tie all of God's commands together into a neat, orderly package. I finally came to realize that I was frequently ignoring God's commands, warnings, etc, because my Calvinistic theology had already given me set answers for the questions. Whenever Scripture verses contradicted my Calvinistic theology, I forced the verses to fit with my presuppositions. However, by God's grace, through reading His Word, He finally brought me to see that I was not capable of understanding Him or His will in such a manner as to tie everything together. As He commanded Peter in John 21:22, "if I will that he (John) tarry til I come, what is that to thee? Follow thou Me!" In the matter of killing and violence, the Lord made it abundantly clear, both through His commands and through His own walk, that Christians are not allowed to participate in violence, including state sanctioned violence and killing. Whether I can systematically tie together all of His commands is of little relevance. He has commanded us to follow Him.

Have a nice day,

Ron

thrombomodulin
Posts: 431
Joined: Sun Aug 24, 2008 6:59 am

Re: Preachers who do not advocate war from the pulpit

Post by thrombomodulin » Sun Nov 17, 2013 5:51 pm

Ron,
rcassell wrote:You seem to have a pro-war or just war mindset.
That would be a misunderstanding. I do not embrace either a pro war or just war mindset. A friend of mine likes to say, I think accurately, that the State is a looting and killing machine. The difficulty I am concerned with is that when it is affirmed by Christians that the State is a special sphere of authority, like the family or church, that it necessarily leads to an affirmation, in greater or lesser degree, of the coercive means the State employs to impose its will. Since I am not disposed to hold a position which is inconsistent, and since I cannot affirm the "state sanctioned violence and killing" whether done by Christians or non-Christians (that is to say, I do not wish to honor any veteran), I must admit that my sympathies are with the anarchocapitialists. This is view not without its own problems, so I would not say that I have fully embraced the ancap position.

Best Regards
Pete

MMathis
Posts: 195
Joined: Fri May 25, 2012 11:15 am

Re: Preachers who do not advocate war from the pulpit

Post by MMathis » Sun Nov 17, 2013 6:58 pm

I know of no land being attacked by American soldiers.
MMathis
Las Vegas NV

User avatar
Homer
Posts: 2995
Joined: Sat Aug 23, 2008 11:08 pm

Re: Preachers who do not advocate war from the pulpit

Post by Homer » Mon Nov 18, 2013 12:30 am

It has been asserted here that the early Christians were uniformly pacifists and would not have supported war in any way, but Origen, in "Against Celsus", book VIII, chapt. 73, appears to indicate Christians were supporting the Roman army through intercessory prayer so that "whatever is opposed to those who would act righteously may be destroyed". Origen went on to say "but we fight on his behalf, forming a special army - an army of piety - by offering offering prayers to God".

rcassell wrote:
the Lord made it abundantly clear, both through His commands and through His own walk, that Christians are not allowed to participate in violence
Jesus was usually non-violent during His life on earth, but not so much when he cleansed the temple. But how do we reconcile the gentle Jesus with the destruction of Jerusalem?

Post Reply

Return to “Teachers, Authors, and Movements”