Jump to content

The Protestant Community

Welcome to Christforums the Protestant Community. You'll need to register in order to post your comments on your favorite topics and subjects. You'll also enjoy sharing media across multiple platforms. We hope you enjoy your fellowship here! God bless, Christforums' Staff
Register now

Christforums

Christforums is a Protestant Christian forum, open to Bible- believing Christians such as Presbyterians, Lutherans, Reformed, Baptists, Church of Christ members, Pentecostals, Anglicans. Methodists, Charismatics, or any other conservative, Nicene- derived Christian Church. We do not solicit cultists of any kind, including Mormons, Jehovah's Witnesses, Eastern Lightning, Falun Gong, Unification Church, Aum Shinrikyo, Christian Scientists or any other non- Nicene, non- Biblical heresy. God bless, Christforums' Staff
Register now
theophilus

Was Jesus really a pacifist?

Recommended Posts

Posted (edited)
6 hours ago, CompleteAgape said:

Examples and teachings from God in the OT were for the Hebrews/Jews.  God's teachings for His people today do not come from the OT, they come from Jesus.  Jesus did away with that and established a new way in which God desires His people to live.  One example of numerous, numerous, numerous principles of Jesus is when He references the OT: you know from old an eye for an eye and tooth for a tooth is justifiable, BUT I SAY to you turn the other check when you are hit.  What is the principle?  Before, God allowed equal retaliation/punishment; yet now Jesus is instructing man that this is no longer applicable.  Man is not to retaliate and seek or expect retribution.  The nature, characteristics, responsibilities, expectations of God is not a reasoning for us living a certain way.  The life of Jesus as a man is the way we are to live and His principles are very clear if we let them speak to us without prejudice.

The Lord of the OT and Jesus are one in the same.  The teachings did not change.  In fact, Jesus condemned people and also flipped tables and struck people with a whip.  Jesus was no pacifist.  Self-Defense is justified to kill, as is warfare, and just hunting.  Exodus 15:3 states, "The LORD is a Man of War.  The LORD is His Name."Jesus is a Man of War as stated in this OT verse and King  David is a man after His own heart. 

 

Now, regarding an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth, that was in regards to a civil court government system to be established.  That was not in regards to a vigilante system of justice.  I think the Hebrews were using that verse to get even with enemies in a vigilante way rather than only in a court system as intended and Jesus clarified the point.

 

Many people are confused and think the OT Lord is any different than Jesus of the NT.  The Lord is the same today, as He was yesterday, and will be forever.

Edited by CDF47
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As far as Jesus’ earthy example (his 33 years among us), I agree with the evaluation of Marin Luther King, Jr that Jesus was not a pacifist, but a non-violent activist.  For example, Jesus not only violated the ‘religious authority’ man made prohibitions on the Sabbath by healing the lame man.  He made a public spectacle of the fact by commanding the healed man to carry his bed through town (a human prohibited action).

 

The clearing of the temple has been mentioned already.  However a careful reading of the events will reveal that no person was either injured or suffered permanent loss.  The whip drove the animals out of the temple (forcing the sellers of animals to chase after their livestock to recover them).  The tables were overturned (forcing the money changers to scramble in the dirt to recover their coins).  The sellers of birds fled with their cages (since releasing the birds would have caused them real, permanent loss).  Jesus directed his violence against EVIL and not against people.

 

The error is in the assumption that we must do exactly what Jesus did and must not do anything that Jesus did not do.  As citizens of both our earthly communities and our heavenly kingdom, we have no right to pursue vengeance or vigilante justice.  Our opposition to personal and institutional evil should follow Jesus example.  We have no Christian right to murder abortion providers to save babies.  However, Caesar does not wield the sword for nothing and the Government (including Christians who serve the government) have a duty to enforce both Law and Justice (not contrary to the Laws of God and their conscience.)

 

 

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Old Testament is not changed, but rather fulfilled. 

 

There has always been a season for everything, there always will be. We cannot sit back and watch innocent people victimized, yet at the same time we have to weigh our actions with God's Will, and I think different situations have potential for different actions and reactions on our part. 

 

Our dying words at the hands of persecutors and our actions in these situations can turn the heart of those who persecute us toward God and salvation. 

 

Our protection of the innocent from harm can do the same. 

 

I believe that we will know what to do, when each situation comes upon us, if we but ask God.

 

We never fear our own death or persecution, but we also have a love of the innocent and it is unbearable to watch people be harmed. 

 

 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
52 minutes ago, atpollard said:

As far as Jesus’ earthy example (his 33 years among us), I agree with the evaluation of Marin Luther King, Jr that Jesus was not a pacifist, but a non-violent activist.  For example, Jesus not only violated the ‘religious authority’ man made prohibitions on the Sabbath by healing the lame man.  He made a public spectacle of the fact by commanding the healed man to carry his bed through town (a human prohibited action).

 

The clearing of the temple has been mentioned already.  However a careful reading of the events will reveal that no person was either injured or suffered permanent loss.  The whip drove the animals out of the temple (forcing the sellers of animals to chase after their livestock to recover them).  The tables were overturned (forcing the money changers to scramble in the dirt to recover their coins).  The sellers of birds fled with their cages (since releasing the birds would have caused them real, permanent loss).  Jesus directed his violence against EVIL and not against people.

 

The error is in the assumption that we must do exactly what Jesus did and must not do anything that Jesus did not do.  As citizens of both our earthly communities and our heavenly kingdom, we have no right to pursue vengeance or vigilante justice.  Our opposition to personal and institutional evil should follow Jesus example.  We have no Christian right to murder abortion providers to save babies.  However, Caesar does not wield the sword for nothing and the Government (including Christians who serve the government) have a duty to enforce both Law and Justice (not contrary to the Laws of God and their conscience.)

 

 

That's a great way to put it..

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
52 minutes ago, atpollard said:

As far as Jesus’ earthy example (his 33 years among us), I agree with the evaluation of Marin Luther King, Jr that Jesus was not a pacifist, but a non-violent activist.  For example, Jesus not only violated the ‘religious authority’ man made prohibitions on the Sabbath by healing the lame man.  He made a public spectacle of the fact by commanding the healed man to carry his bed through town (a human prohibited action).

 

The clearing of the temple has been mentioned already.  However a careful reading of the events will reveal that no person was either injured or suffered permanent loss.  The whip drove the animals out of the temple (forcing the sellers of animals to chase after their livestock to recover them).  The tables were overturned (forcing the money changers to scramble in the dirt to recover their coins).  The sellers of birds fled with their cages (since releasing the birds would have caused them real, permanent loss).  Jesus directed his violence against EVIL and not against people.

 

The error is in the assumption that we must do exactly what Jesus did and must not do anything that Jesus did not do.  As citizens of both our earthly communities and our heavenly kingdom, we have no right to pursue vengeance or vigilante justice.  Our opposition to personal and institutional evil should follow Jesus example.  We have no Christian right to murder abortion providers to save babies.  However, Caesar does not wield the sword for nothing and the Government (including Christians who serve the government) have a duty to enforce both Law and Justice (not contrary to the Laws of God and their conscience.)

 

 

Joh 2:13  And the Jews' passover was at hand, and Jesus went up to Jerusalem, 
Joh 2:14  And found in the temple those that sold oxen and sheep and doves, and the changers of money sitting: 
Joh 2:15  And when he had made a scourge of small cords, he drove them all out of the temple, and the sheep, and the oxen; and poured out the changers' money, and overthrew the tables; 
Joh 2:16  And said unto them that sold doves, Take these things hence; make not my Father's house an house of merchandise. 


Mat 21:12  And Jesus went into the temple of God, and cast out all them that sold and bought in the temple, and overthrew the tables of the moneychangers, and the seats of them that sold doves, 

 

I am interested to understand how, why you woud say

Quote

 However a careful reading of the events will reveal that no person was either injured or suffered permanent loss

when i read no mention either way? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
8 hours ago, Becky said:

Joh 2:13  And the Jews' passover was at hand, and Jesus went up to Jerusalem, 
Joh 2:14  And found in the temple those that sold oxen and sheep and doves, and the changers of money sitting: 
Joh 2:15  And when he had made a scourge of small cords, he drove them all out of the temple, and the sheep, and the oxen; and poured out the changers' money, and overthrew the tables; 
Joh 2:16  And said unto them that sold doves, Take these things hence; make not my Father's house an house of merchandise. 


Mat 21:12  And Jesus went into the temple of God, and cast out all them that sold and bought in the temple, and overthrew the tables of the moneychangers, and the seats of them that sold doves, 

 

I am interested to understand how, why you woud say

when i read no mention either way? 

 

  • [John 2:15-16 NASB] 15 And He made a scourge of cords, and drove [them] all out of the temple, with the sheep and the oxen; and He poured out the coins of the money changers and overturned their tables; 16 and to those who were selling the doves He said, "Take these things away; stop making My Father's house a place of business."
  • [John 2:15-16 NIV] 15 So he made a whip out of cords, and drove all from the temple courts, both sheep and cattle; he scattered the coins of the money changers and overturned their tables. 16 To those who sold doves he said, "Get these out of here! Stop turning my Father's house into a market!"
  • [John 2:15-16 NLT] 15 Jesus made a whip from some ropes and chased them all out of the Temple. He drove out the sheep and cattle, scattered the money changers' coins over the floor, and turned over their tables. 16 Then, going over to the people who sold doves, he told them, "Get these things out of here. Stop turning my Father's house into a marketplace!"

So let us start with the easy part.  It states NOTHING about Jesus striking a moneychanger or those selling doves. It is very clear what Jesus did do to each of these two groups:  Jesus poured out the coins and overturned the tables of the money changers.  Jesus spoke to the sellers of doves.

 

So now it is time to deal with the whip.  First, ‘drove’ is a term generally used to describe animals more than people.  One “drives” a herd and “chases” a crowd.

Second, is it safe to assume that the Word made Flesh knows the wisdom of Proverbs and the Law?

 

  • [Proverbs 26:3 NASB] A whip is for the horse, a bridle for the donkey, And a rod for the back of fools.
  • [Deuteronomy 25:1-2 NASB] 1 "If there is a dispute between men and they go to court, and the judges decide their case, and they justify the righteous and condemn the wicked, 2 then it shall be if the wicked man deserves to be beaten, the judge shall then make him lie down and be beaten in his presence with the number of stripes according to his guilt.

 

So a whip (scourge) is for animals and a rod is for people.  Jesus made a whip.

The Law requires a man be tried in court and convicted by judges before he can be beaten.  Did Jesus violate the Law? (If so, Christ was not sinless and we are all damned).

 

So the reading that Jesus used the whip to drive out all the animals is the only possible one.

God Bless.

Edited by atpollard
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thank you for the information. 

John 2:15 implies to me He went after "them', 'those that sold, and the changers of money,  which are described in 14. 

Wont hurt for me to look deeper into what you have presented ☺️ thanks again.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 6/9/2018 at 9:04 PM, CompleteAgape said:

God is clear that He is the only one with the authority to exact revenge; not Christians.

Governments are established to be his servants in carrying out revenge.  A Christian can help avenge wrong if he is acting as an agent of the government.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Joh 1:1  In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 
Joh 1:2  The same was in the beginning with God. 
Joh 1:3  All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made. 
Joh 1:4  In him was life; and the life was the light of men. 
2Ti_3:16  All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: 
 

Maybe you are one who  believes only the recorded life of Jesus is for teaching. If this is so then this Scripture is of no value to you.

 

Joh 21:25  And there are also many other things which Jesus did, the which, if they should be written every one, I suppose that even the world itself could not contain the books that should be written. Amen. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, atpollard said:

 Did Jesus violate the Law? (If so, Christ was not sinless and we are all damned).

Is Christ under the law or sovereign over it?  If He is sovereign over the law He cannot break it; for the law has change because He so wishes. (IMO)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Jesus/God can do nothing that is not Godly.

  • Confused 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Fastfredy0 said:

Is Christ under the law or sovereign over it?  If He is sovereign over the law He cannot break it; for the law has change because He so wishes. (IMO)

Are you advocating that Jesus was not able to obey the Law of Moses given to Israel and is only "sinless" because the Christ has a special right to break the Law and change it so it doesn't count against him?

The fact that Jesus lived a sinless life and ALWAYS obeyed the Law given to Moses is sort of the point of what makes him qualified to be the Great High Priest.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
28 minutes ago, atpollard said:

Are you advocating that Jesus was not able to obey the Law of Moses given to Israel

No, He is omnipotent.  This was child's play for Him.

 

54 minutes ago, atpollard said:

is only "sinless" because the Christ has a special right to break the Law and change it so it doesn't count against him?

Sin is a transgression of God's law. Since God is the only lawgiver, and the only standard of right and wrong, for him to become a sinner, he would have to impose a law upon himself, break this law, and the judge himself as a transgressorAs long as God approves himself, he is righteous by definition, and he is never a sinner or wrongdoer. It is wrong for God to be the author of sin only if he has declared that it is wrong for him to be the author of sin. It is not up to theologians to invent a problem for him (as you have done IMO) and then rescue him from it.

 

56 minutes ago, atpollard said:

The fact that Jesus lived a sinless life and ALWAYS obeyed the Law given to Moses is sort of the point of what makes him qualified to be the Great High Priest.

I would quibble that it is 'a' point and not 'the' point.  He also, a priest, must present a blood sacrifice to expiate God for example. 

"Thou art a priest forever, after the order of Melchizedek," (Psalm 110:4) shows He was a priest long before the LAW which you indicate "makes him qualified to be Great High Priest".  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Fastfredy0 said:

No, He is omnipotent.  This was child's play for Him.

Yet you advocate that he did not keep the Law.

 

Law of Moses:

[Deu 25:1-3 NASB] 1 "If there is a dispute between men and they go to court, and the judges decide their case, and they justify the righteous and condemn the wicked, 2 then it shall be if the wicked man deserves to be beaten, the judge shall then make him lie down and be beaten in his presence with the number of stripes according to his guilt. 3 "He may beat him forty times [but] no more, so that he does not beat him with many more stripes than these and your brother is not degraded in your eyes.

 

Paul objecting to a violation of that Law:

[Act 23:1-3 NASB] 1 Paul, looking intently at the Council, said, "Brethren, I have lived my life with a perfectly good conscience before God up to this day." 2 The high priest Ananias commanded those standing beside him to strike him on the mouth. 3 Then Paul said to him, "God is going to strike you, you whitewashed wall! Do you sit to try me according to the Law, and in violation of the Law order me to be struck?"

 

Jesus violating that same law (if Jesus beat people with the whip):

[Jhn 2:13-16 NASB] 13 The Passover of the Jews was near, and Jesus went up to Jerusalem. 14 And He found in the temple those who were selling oxen and sheep and doves, and the money changers seated [at their tables.] 15 And He made a scourge of cords, and drove [them] all out of the temple, with the sheep and the oxen; and He poured out the coins of the money changers and overturned their tables; 16 and to those who were selling the doves He said, "Take these things away; stop making My Father's house a place of business."

 

Did Jesus live as a man and obey the Law of Moses, or not?

 

19 minutes ago, Fastfredy0 said:

Sin is a transgression of God's law. Since God is the only lawgiver, and the only standard of right and wrong, for him to become a sinner, he would have to impose a law upon himself, break this law, and the judge himself as a transgressorAs long as God approves himself, he is righteous by definition, and he is never a sinner or wrongdoer. It is wrong for God to be the author of sin only if he has declared that it is wrong for him to be the author of sin. It is not up to theologians to invent a problem for him (as you have done IMO) and then rescue him from it. 

 

So even Jesus did not obey all the Law of Moses?

God made a Law for men that even He did not keep?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Fastfredy0 said:
18 hours ago, atpollard said:

 Did Jesus violate the Law? (If so, Christ was not sinless and we are all damned). 

Is Christ under the law or sovereign over it?  If He is sovereign over the law He cannot break it; for the law has change because He so wishes. (IMO)

Keeping in mind the genesis of the tangential discussion as stated above ...  You stated Jesus sin if He violated the law.   My contention is that Jesus is NOT under the law; the rule does not rule Him.  

 

 

18 minutes ago, atpollard said:

Yet you advocate that he did not keep the Law.

I made not such statement.  I did not advocate either way.   I believe your conclusion that Christ would have sinned if He broke the law is invalid because He is not subject to the law; the law is subject to the sovereign.

 

28 minutes ago, atpollard said:

Did Jesus live as a man and obey the Law of Moses, or not?

This is not relevant to my point.  My point is GOD is sovereign and as such is not subject to the law.

 

Aside:

The Law - Thou shall not kill

Story of Noah ... God send flood to kill people

Now, if I send a flood and kill people I would be found guilty of breaking the law.  God does it and it is not a sin or ethical problem because He is not under the law; he is sovereign and can do as He pleases and does all things according to His nature.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
29 minutes ago, Fastfredy0 said:

Keeping in mind the genesis of the tangential discussion as stated above ...  You stated Jesus sin if He violated the law.   My contention is that Jesus is NOT under the law; the rule does not rule Him.  

I disagree.

(There is little point in being incarnated and not being subject to the rules of being a man.  It proves that even a perfect-man did not keep God's Laws and it makes a mockery of Hebrews 4:15 )

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Heb_4:15  For we have not an high priest which cannot be touched with the feeling of our infirmities; but was in all points tempted like as we are, yet without sin. 
 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Becky said:

Heb_4:15  For we have not an high priest which cannot be touched with the feeling of our infirmities; but was in all points tempted like as we are, yet without sin. 
 

A lot of people struggle with Hebrews 4:15 when they come to know that Jesus does not have a sin nature. They ask, how can He be tempted without a sin nature?

 

Again, the Sixth commandment has both a negative and positive sense. The negative sense being You shall not murder. If we ask ourselves why we should not murder (what am I, my brothers keeper?) then the positive sense should be made apparent to us. We have a duty to preserve life, that is, the innocent life of our neighbor.

 

God bless,

William

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×