What does the Bible have to say about the Lord’s Supper, Holy Communion, or the Eucharist? I asked my friend, Reed Merino, author of Blueprint For A Revolution: Building Upon ALL Of The New Testament, to share his thoughts on the topic. If you have read what I have written in Church Words, you know that I am still unsure of, exactly, how I would define exactly what happens when observing Holy Communion. But I do know this, the casual way many churches do it today detracts from the solemnity and self-examination it deserves.

For me, the way some churches are doing it would be like telling a new believer the next time they bathe, to slide under the water uttering the words “Father,” “Son” and “Holy Spirit” after which they would automatically become a member of the local congregation. Although I do not believe there is a salvific component attached to either the Lord’s Supper or baptism, I know they should embody the heart of worshipful surrender for all believers.

THE LORD’S SUPPER, THE EUCHARIST, OR HOLY COMMUNION 

In my book, Blueprint For A Revolution: Building Upon ALL Of The New Testament, I spend thirty pages exegeting – interpreting – all of the Biblical passages pertaining to the Holy Communion. Alas, space limitations upon an online essay require that you will have to look up the text for much of the New Testament references in this essay. This essay is sort of a truncated “Reader’s Digest” version of that much more comprehensive coverage in the Blueprint, and cannot even cover all of the aspects of the Eucharist that are actually quite relevant to understanding that wonderful mystery of God.

So, in this essay, I will deal with what the God-inspired passages teach us about what He intends to make available in the Lord’s Supper/Eucharist/Holy Communion (whatever you choose to name it). I also will deal with how that sacred eating and drinking fits into the larger picture of the unique kind of relationship that Jesus is offering to His true disciples.

Every issue that I deal with in my Blueprint is grounded on several principles that are exceedingly easy to understand:

• Jesus, the One “by whom,” “for whom,” and “through whom” we, our bodies, and the entire creation were first designed within His brilliant mind and then engineered into being – that same Jesus also invented the ability for us to communicate with words. This assures us that when He became one of us, He was the best communicator that has ever lived on planet Earth. And, like even excellent human communicators, He knew how to pick the best words that could transfer what was in His mind into the minds of His surrendered disciples (assuming the willingness to not resist those words, of course).
• And, also like any excellent human communicators, He (and the apostolic writers He inspired) knew the nature of the audience He was addressing. And the vast majority of those to whom all His teachings and inspired literature were addressed were carpenters, farmers, fishermen and the like. Most of the Epistles, for example, are addressed “to the “saints at …” And, unlike poets, diplomats, and politicians, simple people assume that what you MEAN is precisely what your chosen WORDS mean. His words can mean more than what is said, but they will never mean less than what they say. Perhaps the most important reason the churches are not walking in the truth, obedience and anointing that we see described in the New Testament is because we no longer read and respond to the New Testament that way.

 Instead, we feel free to impose additional ideas not actually expressed by what was actually written down, and feel free to take away meaning from what was actually written down. And so, as just one example, some churches feel free to deny that immersion in water has anything significant to do with our salvation, even though God’s delegated representative Peter, said that what he means by baptism does form part of what God means by salvation (1 Peter 3:21).

Just how is it that language so exceedingly clear and easy for fishermen and farmers to understand, cannot mean what it seems to be saying? The Christians closest to the time of Jesus had no trouble believing and teaching what those words seem to be saying; why do you think so many of us do? My Blueprint describes dozens of such examples that seem clear within the inspired apostolic writings, and which were understood that way by the earliest churches. This essay is about just one of those issues:

 JESUS INSTITUTES THE LORD’S SUPPER

Matthew 26:26. “And as they were eating, Jesus took bread, blessed, and broke it, and gave it to the disciples and said, ‘Take, eat; this is My body.’ 27 Then He took the cup, and gave thanks, and gave it to them, saying, ‘Drink from it, all of you. 28 For this is My blood of the new covenant, which is shed for many for the  remission of sins. 29 But I say to you, I will not drink of this fruit of the vine from now on until that day when I drink it new with you in My Father’s kingdom.’”

Why do you think Jesus – history’s most excellent communicator – chose to use that word “is” when He said, “this is my body.” Why do you think He did not use a term such as “is like my body”? You know, or should know, that he did frequently use the term “is like,” especially when describing the Kingdom of God – precisely twenty times in the NKJV, to be exact: (“The kingdom of God is like …”; read Matthew 13, for many such examples). So, He did know how to say “is like” or “is similar to,” but He did not.

It is very important for you to think about why Jesus chose the word “is” rather than “is like.” Most Protestants are firmlydetermined to treat that word “is” as if Jesus actually meant “is like.” And some even insist upon understanding it to [supposedly] “really mean” “reminds us of.” But you yourself do not use the word that way: if I hold up a ten-dollar bill to you and say, “this is a ten-dollar bill,” you do not understand me to be saying, “this is like a ten-dollar bill,” do you? Or, when Jesus said, “He who has seen me has seen the Father” (John 14:9). Do you merely believe He was saying something like “To see me is sort of like seeing the Father”? And when Jesus said, “unless one is born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God.” (John 3:3) I do not imagine that you think that he meant “is like being born again,” do you? Do you think that what He simply meant by “is born again” was “is similar to being born once again,” or “sort of like being born again”? 

So, if you take those words to mean what they seem to be saying, then by what authority did the Reformers Zwingly, Calvin, your denomination, or you presume to reinterpret Jesus’s words into something they do not seem to be saying? Furthermore, from my own personal experience, I can virtually guarantee that if you or your churches feel free to reinterpret this teaching that way, you are doing the same to numerous other teachings of Jesus and His holy apostles! Satan makes sure that there is a “domino effect” available to use, in order to distort his Enemy’s wonderful revelation and gifts.

If you are willing to be like those simple fishermen, farmers and brethren of the earliest post-apostolic churches, and just accept what Jesus said and in the way He chose to say it, what is the next thing for you to do?

I suggest that the next logical thing to ask is something like, “OK, if He really meant that this bread and wine, after the Thanksgiving is given over it, really “is” His body and blood, then in what way “is” it connected to His human nature? (Of course, in His divine nature, He did not possess any “body and blood” that could be eaten).

Most of us Protestants are the inheritors of five centuries of emotional recoiling at the “required for salvation” doctrine of “transubstantiation” imposed by the medieval church under Rome (although Orthodoxy teaches essentially the identical doctrine). That term means that the bread and wine quit being bread and wine (“substantially,” if you care to play with words), and are replaced by the reality of the body and blood that suffered and died on the cross. The image that quite naturally and immediately pops into the modern Protestant mind when thinking about that doctrine, is “CANNIBALISM!” Actually, that is rather unfair, but we have to leave that segway for another time.

Paul actually gives us the answer to that question, about ‘what way “is” it connected to His human nature?’ He does it by using the term “communion”:

“16 The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not the communion of the blood of Christ? The bread which we break, is it not the communion of the body of Christ? (1 Corinthians 10:16)

 Did you notice that in the passage just quoted that Paul continues to call that consecrated bread, “bread”?

The grammar requires Paul to be saying that it is the bread that is in communion with His body (as also with the wine).  It is the bread that has communion with His body. Did you catch that? It is actually critical to the understanding of what he is saying.

In addition to “communion,” some translations have “sharing” or “participation” to translate that Greek term Paul used, which was “koinonia” in Greek. The picture behind both the Greek and the several English equivalents is one of various things (or people) being yoked together. Each individual remains what it was, but because of that yoking together, wherever one is there you will find the other one. If you have “communion” with one another, you all remain what you were – you do not “merge” into a single person. Do you get the idea?

 So, the bread and the wine do NOT have to quit being bread and wine in order to “be” He body and blood. Here is another example of what Paul was saying: Jesus existed before He took a human body (and blood) upon Himself, right? Now, suppose you went up to Jesus at that wedding in Cana (John 2), pointed to His body and asked Him, “What is that?” He might have replied, “This is my body.”

When He became a man and took upon Himself that human “body,” did His divinity require that it quit being a human body? Of course not: he got tired, hungry, and thirsty when walking all day (John 4:5), and when they pierced His side, He bled (John 19:34). Divinity and humanity are in “communion,” but His body did not have to quit being a normal human body, right. That human body became His body simply because He chose to yoke Himself to that body; it did not quit being a normal human body in order to become the “body of Christ,” did it!

 That is what Jesus and Paul are teaching us in the Lord’s Supper (a.k.a., “Eucharist” or “Holy Communion”). The bread “is” or “becomes” His body simply because He has decided to yoke Himself to it. And the yoking does not have to cause it to quit being physically what it had been before. Can you see how this way of looking at it is both being surrendered to what Jesus and Paul were clearly saying, without having to adopt some mysterious “quit being bread” theological “mumbo jumbo” like “transubstantiation” so easily lends itself to?

 But before you, as a Protestant, start jumping up and down victoriously shouting, “See, we were right all along!”, consider this: the error of the Romans and the Orthodox was made in an attempt to teach how the bread and wine could be called and treated as His body and blood. Apart from Luther and the Anglicans, the entire Protestant world has denied the reality of what Jesus and Paul taught. If I personally had to be in one camp or the other, I would pick the Catholic error any day of the week. Anti-sacramental Protestantism has destroyed the reality of the wonderful and mysterious gift that Jesus is offering in His Holy Communion, and destroys the piety that responds to such a gift!

Jesus promised that “For where two or three are gathered together in My name, I am there in the midst of them” (John 18:20). But because most of Protestantism has become so fixated against God ministering to us through things like water, touching, or bread and wine it always assumes that His presence in their gathering is not a literal presence, the same kind of presence of Jesus that cause doubting Thomas to cry out, “My Lord and my God!” or caused John to fall at His feet as if dead! (Revelation 1:17).

Because the risen and glorified Jesus yokes Himself to that special bread and wine you can and must say “This is Your body; this is your blood; You are here in our midst!” His presence is that same kind of presence that Thomas and John responded to, but seen through the eyes of obedient faith with regard to the Holy Communion. Once the Lord opened my young Protestant eyes my worship began to undergo that same supernatural transformation that His true teaching starts in motion!

THE GOSPEL PASSAGES DESCRIBE WHAT IS BEING GIVEN, BUT WHY IS IT BEING GIVEN? OR WHAT PURPOSE DOES THE EUCHARIST SERVE IN THE MIND OF JESUS?

 When you meditate carefully upon the following passage, and receive the words as if they really mean what they are saying you get a glimpse of one of the answers to that question.

 1 Corinthians 10: “17

For we, [though] many, are one bread and one body; for we all partake of that one bread.  18 Observe Israel after the flesh: Are not those who eat of the sacrifices partakers of the altar? 19 What am I saying then? That an idol is anything, or what is offered to idols is anything? 20 Rather, that the things which the Gentiles sacrifice they sacrifice to demons and not to God, and I do not want you to have fellowship with demons. 21 You cannot drink the cup of the Lord and the cup of demons; you cannot partake of the Lord’s table and of the table of demons. 22 Or do we provoke the Lord to jealousy? Are we stronger than He?”

This passage is a part of Paul’s teaching about the Eucharist that has been quoted earlier. In the first verse (17), he is literally saying that it is because we are eating from the one loaf of bread that we are one body. That seems to be not only an amazingly bold claim, but one that can rather easily open Paul up to a charge of “sacramental magic”: something like, “do this and unity is assured!” But He surely is saying something much deeper than that, no? After all, in the very next chapter he chews some of them out royally for perverting the Lord’s Supper (11:20-22). Eating the bread and wine certainly was not creating that unity in Christ or them!

But Paul is teaching us that if you are walking in that broken and contrite heart and a humble faith and you are joined to the body and blood of Jesus in the way described above, then the Holy Spirit will be drawing you toward the fulfillment of that wonderful and supernatural unity for which Jesus prayed: “20 “I pray not only for these, but also for those who believe in me through their word; 21 that they all may be one, just as You, Father, are in me and I in You; that in Us they also may be one, so that the world may believe that You sent me. 22 In fact, the glory that You gave to me I have given to them, so that they may be one just as We are one.”

The kind of relationship that Jesus has made both possible and necessary for us is not the kind that two friends can have, or even the kind that a godly husband and wife can have. The relationship He is talking about is one of union, as described in the passage immediately above: to be both individually and collectively one with the Father, Son and Spirit in the way that they are one with each other! “… that they may be one just as We are one.” His Eucharist is designed to be a part of creating that wonderful and intimate kind of becoming one. How can you not find that something to yearn for? Through that Eucharistic eating, just as your body becomes one with the bread, so is the deeper “you” becoming one with God

Consequently, if you are in Paul’s kind of relationship with Jesus and if you are participating in his kind of Lord’s Supper, the Spirit of God will be drawing you into the kind of unity which Jesus prayed: that is God’s promise! Do you believe Paul?

Moving on to verse 18: “Observe Israel after the flesh: Are not those who eat of the sacrifices partakers of the altar?” If you eat from the sacrifice being made on the altar, you are partaking in what is going on at the altar. In other words, you take part in the sacrifice being offered to God by eating what is being offered to God! You become part of what is being offered to God, and accepted by Him. Can you see that? And since Paul is indicating that this Old Covenant action was a parallel to what the Christians are doing in the Eucharist, he is teaching us that we also take part in the holy sacrifice of Jesus by eating the Eucharistic bread and wine. You don’t just think piously about His dying on your behalf; you actually participate in that holy offering of His, by eating His bread-yoked-to-body and His wine-yoked-to-blood.

Can you see what you are missing as a Protestant, and what they were enjoying as apostolic Christians? All we Protestants need to do is repair our damaged faith that is derived from our damaged apostolic doctrine, and we can know for ourselves what Paul was talking about!

Starting at verse 19, Paul uses the pagan sacrifices to say the same thing that he said about the Old Covenant sacrifices. When the pagans ate from their sacrifice to their demon gods, the same thing was happening for them – unfortunately! They were actually yoking themselves to their “god,” being drawn ever more deeply into the presence and union with one of Satan’s underlings!

But by using those pagan sacrifices as another parallel to God’s Eucharist, Paul was telling them what the true creator God was setting in motion for them – all being done through the Eucharist, in which the Son of God had yoked Himself to that eatable bread and wine. You see, you are more than an invisible creature – the human defined as “you” is a trinitarian creature: spirit and soul and body (as per Hebrews 4:12). ALL of you takes part in the benefits of the death, resurrection and glorification of Jesus, not just your “invisible” part. That ought to excite you and bring great joy and thankfulness to you. Does it? Or are you getting hung up about past doctrinal errors that had cheated you so badly?

BUT HOW CAN WE BE “EATING AND DRINKING” CHRIST?

One last important problem may remain for you as a Protestant. How can all of this union with Jesus through bread and wine be accomplished when He is no longer physically here? That problem is sort of an inverse version of the problem that I and many or most Protestants seem to have had over that first Lord’s Supper: Jesus is reclining with them at a table, in His physical body. When He said, “This is my body,” it seems impossible to be literally true, because He was already there in His physical body! How could He be in two places at the same time – in His human body and in the bread?

The answer is given to us in 1 Corinthians 15:35-45

“But someone will say, “How are the dead raised up? And with what body do they come?” 36 Foolish one, what you sow is not made alive unless it dies. 37 And what you sow, you do not sow that body that shall be, … 42 So also isthe resurrection of the dead. The body is sown in corruption, it is raised in incorruption. 43 It is sown in dishonor, it is raised in glory. It is sown in weakness, it is raised in power. 44 It is sown a natural body, it is raised a spiritual body. There is a natural body, and there is a spiritual body. 45 And so it is written, “The first man Adam became a living being.” The last Adam BECAME a life-giving spirit.”

In His resurrection and then ascension into glory all the glands, bones, and tissues that had constituted His physical body were no longer “natural” (i.e., physical), and we can have no idea whatsoever what that means until it happens to us. Like Jesus, we will be raised into a spiritual body – whatever that means (do you know?).

But a body that has become “spiritual” no longer had the properties and the limitations of a body that is physical. If both the “spiritual” Father and the “spiritual” Holy Spirit can be everywhere at the same time, then I have no problem accepting joyfully that the “life-giving spirit,” Jesus in glory, can do the same as He promised in John 18:20 (see above); and He can yoke Himself to whatever He chooses to, in order to create union with you. Amen?

This essay is not about quibbling over inconsequential doctrinal fine points. Accepting what Jesus and Paul actually said creates a deeper personal experience with your God, and that is very, very consequential! This essay describes the kind of union that He wants you to experience with Him. Is it what you want to experience with Him?

What does the Bible say about institutional violence? Is it right for Jesus followers to carry weapons and use lethal force? It is not unusual these days to see armed security personnel or even police officers guarding houses of worship. How does that square with a belief in an omnipotent, loving God? Should those same sincere believers carry weapons to protect their fellow parishioners or their own family should they be threatened? How about employing lethal weapons in the performance of their occupational duties?  One might logically assert believers ought only to serve in positions where they can honestly carry out the functions of their office without compromising their fidelity to our Lord. The issue at hand is whether engaging in “institutional violence” compromises that fidelity. For this post I have asked my friend, Reed Merino, to offer his opposing view.

“E. Stanley Jones wrote that we search in vain during the early years of church history to find Christian people engaged in warfare. He states that Christians did not become soldiers. If they were in the army when converted, they resigned. Jones describes the early believers as saying, “we will match our power to suffer against your ability to inflict suffering, we will wear you down by our spirit, by soul force against physical force, by going the second mile, by turning the other cheek,” until Rome finally stopped torturing Christians.”^1.

According to Jones, believers willingly accepted the treatment they received at the hands of evil people based on their understanding of Matthew 5:39, from Jesus’s Sermon on the Mount. Today’s believers are not always in accord with respect to topics not specifically resolved through Scripture. This discussion is intended for disciples of Jesus whose imperative is to follow Jesus, period. 

“Francis Schaeffer declared that “to refuse to do what I can for those under the power of oppressors is nothing less than a failure of Christian love. It is to refuse to love my neighbor as myself.” He went on to say that was why he was not a pacifist: “Pacifism in this poor world in which we live—this lost world—means that we desert the people who need our greatest help.” Peace at any price is never right, whether it is in the realm of spiritual warfare, church discipline, or government.”^2.

As we shall see, institutional violence is apparently approached differently between the Old and New Testaments. What if anything, has changed? Certainly, God has not changed. One can find numerous incidents in the Old Testament where Israel as the people of God was involved in war, enjoyed the blessing of God in victory and experienced defeat when out of favor with God. But a study of the context makes clear God of the Old Testament was meeting the Israelites where they were, demonstrating to people who worshiped their tribal gods that Yahweh, the God of Israel, was and is the true God. This is not to say that the full revelation of the will of Yahweh was then present.^3.

In De idololatria, Tertullian wrote decisively against military service by professed Christians.^4. Another outspoken critic of military and government service by members of the early church was Origen (c.185-c.254). He argued that Jesus’s message was one of non-violence and posited that Christians supported the emperor in the fight against his nation’s enemies through prayer rather than by military service. Priests and the religious, especially, were prohibited by him from engaging in battle. Furthermore, participation in political matters, even for the maintenance of the laws and the support of religion was discouraged because the rule of the Church was seen as far more pertinent and important to the life of a Christian than matters of state.^5. And those serving as soldiers were prohibited from killing as late as the third century. Roman bishop, Hippolytus, directed that a, “Soldier is not to kill even when ordered to do so.” He continued with, “A Christian is not to become a soldier, unless he is compelled by a chief bearing the sword. He is not to burden himself with the sin of blood.”^6. That view began to change dramatically sometime around the first Council of Nicaea in 325, likely because of state-sponsorship of the church under Constantine.

Canon XII of that council read, “Those who endured violence and were seen to have resisted, but who afterwards yielded to wickedness, and returned to the Army, shall be excommunicated for ten years. But in every case the way in which they do their penance must be scrutinized. And if anyone who is doing penance shows himself zealous in its performance, the Bishop shall treat him more leniently than had he been cold and indifferent.”^7. It might appear that the Council was continuing to stand against Christians serving in the military service, but according to some commentators that was not the case. They argue that by the time the Canon was adopted much of Constantine’s power base resided in his military force. Consequently, those men at arms who were the focus of it were soldiers who had served in the army of Constantine’s rival, Licinius, who not only fought against Constantine, but waged war on Christianity itself.^8.

The most dramatic change in direction came with the development of “just war” doctrine, which has continued into the present. “The need for just war criteria represents the efforts of Western cultures to regulate and restrict violence by establishing rules which specify the situations in which war can be legitimately used as a tool in international statecraft, as well as by setting out rules which govern ethical conduct during combat.”^9. In the Summa Theologicae, Thomas Aquinas presented the general outline of what became traditional just war theory. He described the justification for declaring war, Jus ad Bellum, along with actions that are permissible in the conduct of war, Jus in Bello. They are summarized as follows:

Just War^10.

• The war must have a just cause.
• The war must be waged by a legitimate authority.
• The war must be fought with a right intention.
• The war must be a last resort.
• The expected results of the war must be proportionate.
• There must be a reasonable hope of military success.

Conduct of War

• The weapons and acts of fighting must be discriminating: non combatants may never be targeted.
• The weapons and acts of fighting must be proportionate.
• All the legal rights of enemy soldiers and civilians must be honoured (sic).

The rules of just conduct within war fall under the two broad principles: discrimination and proportionality. Discrimination pertains to legitimate targets in war and proportionality concerns morally appropriate force.^11. Wars that are permissible within Christian thought are limited to holy war and just war. “Holy war is fought for the goals or ideals of the faith (The Crusades) and is waged by divine or religious authority. In a holy war, Christian participation is a positive duty, whereas, in a just war it is permissible, but restricted. Therefore, a holy war is automatically a just war, but a just war is not necessarily a holy war.”^12.

“The Christian consensus is that a war is only just when its cause is to defend the life, liberty, and property of a people who are being assaulted by an aggressor. In defending against the crimes of a belligerent foe, a just war is also the punishment of evildoers and a vindication of justice.”^13. According to some scholars, defensive war is supported by Old Testament Scripture. They cite the case law of Exodus 22, which seems to authorize deadly force in self-defense against a dangerous, nighttime intruder, and may, by application, authorize the use of deadly force in national defense against those who invade or attack the lives, liberties, and properties of the people.^14. Ambrose (c.339-397) recognized the necessity of war for the sake of a secure peace but denounced needless bloodshed. His student Augustine (354-430), by combining Roman and Judeo-Christian thought, explained the existence of war as one of the unavoidable consequences as well as remedy caused by human sin. He argued, however, the right end of society is peace and justice, even in war.^15. This rationale eventually provided legitimacy for the Crusades which synthesized holy war with the just war.^16. 

Martin Luther, in apparent agreement with Francis Schaeffer, characterized a just war as an act of charity, by comparing war and soldering to the acts of a good doctor who may be required to amputate a limb to prevent infection. He even advocated coming to the aid of third parties, or neighbors as he says, “although you do not need to have your enemy punished, your afflicted neighbour (sic) does.”^17. War was seen as an element of Christian discipleship so long as it is not for “avenging yourself or returning evil for evil, but for the good of your neighbour (sic) and for the maintenance of the safety and peace of others.”^18. Augustine, on the other hand, maintained a private citizen or cleric, could not kill an attacker, even in self-defense, since this would entail loss of love. Apparently, the non-violence/pacifism of the early Church extended to civilians.^19.

Footnotes:

1. Myron S. Augsburger, “Christian Pacifism,” http://intervarsity.org/news/christian-pacifism, accessed October 19, 2019.
2. William D. Barrick, “The Christian and War,” http://www.tms.edu/m/tmsj11k.pdf, accessed October 11, 2019.
3. Augsburger.
4. Edward A. Ryan, J.J. “The Rejection of Military Service by Early Christians,” http://cdn.theologicalstudies.net/13/13.1/13.1.1.pdf, accessed October 7, 2019.
5. Arthur F. Holmes, ed., War and Christian Ethics: Classical and Contemporary Readings on the Morality of War, 2nd ed. Grand Rapids, MI.: Baker Academic, (2005) 48-50.
6. Ivar Hellberg, “Religious Perceptions of the Just War and Military Ethics,” http://faithandwar.org/index.php/god-man-and-war/42-god-and-human-nature/67-religious-perceptions-of-the-just-war-and-military-ethics, accessed October 7, 2019.
7. The Ecumenical Council, Nicaea A.D. 325, http://www.csun.edu/~hcfll004/nicaea.html, accessed October 7, 2019.
8. Christian Classics Ethereal Library, “Canon XII,” http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf214.vii.vi.xviii.html, accessed October 7, 2019.
9. Keith J. Gomes, “An Intellectual Genealogy of the Just War: A Survey of Christian Political Thought on the Justification of Warfare,” http://smallwarsjournal.com/blog/journal/docs-temp/80-gomes.pdf, accessed October 5, 2019.
10. Hellberg.
11. Alexander Moseley, “Just War Theory,” Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy, http://www.iep.utm.edu/justwar/, accessed October 9, 2019.
12. Gomes.
13. William O. Einweihte, “A Christian Perspective on Just War,” Darish Press, http://darashpress.com/articles/christian-perspective-just-war, accessed October 5, 2019.
14. Ibid.
15. Gomes.
16. Frederick H. Russell, The Just War in the Middle Ages, Cambridge University Press (1975), 19, 26-38.
17. Gomes.
18. J. Daryl Charles, Between Pacifism and Jihad: Just War and Christian Tradition, Downers Grove, IL: Inter VarsityPress (2005), 52.
19. Gomes.

GUEST’S VIEW

By “institutional violence” I mean the use of legally approved violence, such as being used by the military and police.

As with other questions, this question cannot be answered properly by simply searching out all the Scriptures that deal with warfare, in the hope of finding a simple “yes” or “no,” (such as “Thou shalt [not] be a soldier”). The reason for this is because the Scriptures are the product of the single mind and heart of the Holy Spirit.  Therefore, every passage is yoked to every other passage, sort of like the way that every part of a symphony is connected to every other part of it: all the parts are the product of the composer’s mind and genius.  This means that if you want to know what God means by one passage (for example on this subject of warfare), you need to draw together all the other passages that deal directly and indirectly with this subject: the sum of all the passages describes what the revelation of God actually is. There are some New Testament passages that deal directly with this issue, but there are also teachings that, while not dealing directly with the issue of institutional violence, describe heart attitudes that powerfully impact the conclusion.

So, the answer to the question about things like military violence is linked to the new way of life and attitudes that Jesus created, the way of heaven that is appropriate to one being transformed into the character and personality of God Himself. The effect of the presence of God’s Spirit includes a heart that is saturated with His “love,” “kindness” and “gentleness (Galatians 5:22-23).

Jesus created a way that is indeed impossible for humans to live out, (i.e., on their own; Matthew 19:26).  But He also declared that this impossible way is possible with God (through the Spirit-created heart of God entering into us and motivating us).

What Jesus said about violence is only one of numerous “impossibles” He laid upon those He would accept as disciples:

“You have heard that it was said, ‘An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth.’  But I say to you, do not resist him who is evil; but whoever slaps you on your right cheek, turn to him the other also.  And if anyone wants to sue you, and take your shirt, let him have your coat also.  And whoever shall force you to go one mile, go with him two.” (Matthew 5:38‑41)

“You have condemned and put to death the righteous man; he does not resist you.” (James 5:6)

“But I say to you who hear, love your enemies, do good to those who hate you, bless those who curse you, pray for those who mis­treat you.” (Luke 6:27‑28; also, Romans 12:14)

“Servants, be submissive to your masters with all res­pect, not only to those who are good and gentle, but also to those who are un­reasonable.  For this finds favor, if for the sake of con­sci­ence toward God a man bears up under sorrows when suffering un­just­ly.” (1 Peter 2:18‑19)

These are not idealistic goals by a God who is willing to accept behavior that is more “realistic”: they are commands that the Son of God demands of us if we want to be His “friends” (“You are My friends if you do whatever I command you” – John 15:14).  These commands are indeed the source of great frustration to our flesh’s desire for continued existence and for revenge — so much so, that most of those who are called Chris­tians refuse to accept them in their grammatically natural, literal and true sense.  But we must accept them with­out compro­mise lest we prove our­selves false disciples. After all, Jesus warned us from the very begin­ning, “He who loves his life loses it; and he who hates his life in this world shall keep it to life eternal” (John 12:25).  Anyone who has not let go of this world in a true way, and anyone who yearns to stay on in this world will of course have to resist the force of His teach­ing.  But if we have no strong desire to escape from this world, how can we dare con­sider ourselves Chris­tians?

Being non‑defensive in imitation of Jesus does not leave you defenseless — hardly!  It only makes you refuse to resort to human defenses and forces you to trust instead in God’s defenses. You can en­trust to the Lord the defense of you and of those you love and experience these threat­ening moments as occasions of ministry. You may fail the test­ing in­volved before growing into Christ’s non-violence (think of Peter cutting off Malchus’s ear in the garden: John 18:10), but God will bring us to anointed maturity over time (a much shorter time than is comfortable to rebellious and lazy flesh).

Refusing to defend oneself, in the radical way that Jesus teaches us is not at all a passive thing and does not create passive peo­ple — just the opposite.  Over­coming evil with good is an active, creative deed — far more so than yielding to fear or anger.  One can also be quite aggressive on God’s behalf while governed by this principle — just as ag­gressive as Jesus Himself was at certain times in dealing with the ungodly (e.g., Matthew 23).

This teaching makes warfare and most police work, as necessary as they may be in the world, impossible for dis­ci­ples of Jesus, and in confirmation of that, the early Church con­sis­tent­ly refused to practice or tolerate these forms of violence. Evidence of this is so numerous that it is one of the reasons why Christianity spends so little time teaching you about the first three centuries of the church’s existence!

The consistent Christian attitude toward taking part in the institutional violence of this world can be described by the description written by Origen (c. 185‑254 A.D.) who wrote his work “Against Celsus” in the last years of his life.  He had been born and raised in Alexandria and had spent the latter part of his life in Caesarea (of Palestine); but he had also tra­veled extensively through­out Asia Minor and Greece.  He was known by all around to be a very truthful and humble person, as well as an ex­cellent scholar; his descriptions of contemporary Christian practices can be believed.  When he des­cribes the pacifistic attitude as being the at­titude of Chris­tians in general, we know, by virtue of his travels, his character and his in­telligence, that he is a witness to be taken seriously.  In addition, he is responding to the criticism of the pagan Celsus, who also bore witness to what was understood as the Christian way of life.

[Celsus, the pagan critic, says] “‘..you [Christians] surely do not say that if the Romans were, in compliance with your wish, to neglect duties to gods and men and were to worship the Most High, or whatever you please to call him, that he will come down and fight for them, so that they shall need no other help than his…’  We say that … if they all unite in prayer with one ac­cord, they will be able to put to flight far more enemies than those who were discomfited by the prayer of Moses when he cried to the Lord…  But if all the Romans, according to the position of Celsus, embrace the Chris­tian faith, they will, when they pray, over­come their enemies, or rather, they will not war at all, being guarded by that divine power which promised to save five entire cities for the sake of fifty just persons.

“In the next place, Celsus urges us, ‘to help the king with all our might, and to labor with him in the maintenance of justice, to fight for him; and if he requires it, to fight under him, or lead an army along with him.’  To this our answer is, that we do when occasion requires, give help to kings, and that, so to say, a divine help, putting on the whole armor of God.  And this we do in obedience to the injunction of the apostle, ‘I exhort, therefore, that first of all, supplica­tions, pray­ers, interces­sions and giving of thanks, be made for all men; for kings, and for all that are in authority;’ and the more one excels in piety, the more effective help does he render to kings, even more than is given by soldiers, who go forth to fight and slay as many of the enemy as they can …  And as we by our prayers vanquish all demons who stir up war, lead us to the violation of oaths, and who disturb the peace, we in this way are much more helpful to the kings than those who go into the field to fight for them…  We do not indeed fight under him, although he requires it; but we fight on his behalf, forming a special ar­my ‑‑ an army of piety ‑‑ by offering our prayers to God.

“Celsus also urges us to ‘take office in the govern­ment of the country, if that is required for the maintenance of the laws and the support of religions.’  But we recognize in each state the existence of another national organization, founded by the Word of God, and we exhort those who are migh­ty in word and of blame­less life to rule over Churches…  And it is not for the pur­pose of escaping public duties that Christians decline public offices, but that they may reserve themselves for a diviner and more necessary service in the Church of God -‑ for the sal­vation of men.”^1.

There is additional significance in the fact that Celsus wrote his attack upon Chris­tianity some seventy years earlier than Origen’s reply, and either from Rome or Alexandria.  This tells us that the pagan of Rome (or Alexandria) in 180 A.D. knew what the Christians of the eastern Medi­terranean still upheld in 250 A.D. ‑‑ that Christians refused to hold of­fice and to par­ticipate in warfare.  In his reasoning, there is no hint of say­ing “if only you freed us from the obligation to worship your gods we would be glad to rule over you and fight your wars.”  Idolatry was not the foun­dation of the reason for their refusal, although it of course added convic­tion to their refu­sal. The Christian tradi­tion of nonviolence and refusal to assume posi­tions of judgment over others was rooted in the con­viction that each Chris­tian must necessarily im­itate the way of Christ, who turned the other cheek and refused to act as a worldly judge or king.

It is quite impossible to act lovingly (as Jesus defines “love”) and self-sacrificially toward your ene­mies and kill them at the same time.  Christian involvement in secular violence is one of the effects of the wedding of Church and state that has carried over into most of modern Christendom.  Those who never committed themselves to the “impossibles” of Jesus were never converted to Jesus (at least, not to the real Jesus).  In the original churches, if you were not converted to His “impossibles” you were not allowed to be baptized.  This was because you were not yet a Christian in their faithful eyes.

In this fallen world, institutional violence is both necessary and authorized by God: “Therefore, subordinate yourselves to every human institution because of the Lord, whether to a king, as being in authority, or to governors, as being sent by him, both for punishment of evildoers and for praise of good-doers. Because such is the will of God …” (1 Peter 2:13-15).  This teaches quite clearly that institutional violence is indeed necessary for the king to carry out that mandate. “Punishing evil doers” back then was never limited to imposing jail terms.  Executions of those who attacked or rebelled against their lawful government was a part of that “punishment.”

Furthermore, there is not a single passage in the New Testament (let alone the Old) that would make people who had been policemen or soldiers feel sinful, in the way practitioners of theft, murder or adultery were judged.  Rather, the greatest praise that Jesus ever laid upon anyone was given to a soldier (Matthew 8:10).  Military service might attract some who were brutal, but it also was a wonderful training ground to learn to live your life for a higher goal than personal comfort, to learn the meaning of deeper obedience than most people know, and to be willing to die for your comrades.  It is just that such callings must be abandoned to live all of those things out at an even higher and eternal level, and to achieve even higher goals.

There are some things that are truly necessary among the unconverted citizens of this  world – people and systems that are ruled by the “God of this world” (2 Corinthians 4:4, John 12:31, 1 John 5:19).  But some of those things work against the character that God works to create in those who have accepted Christ’s call to leave and “overcome” this world (1 John 5:4), people whose new goal is to enter into His version of the love, kindness and gentleness mentioned above in Galatians 5. Consequently, both the specific passages and the Kingdom of God attitudes described in the New Testament mitigate against the participation in such violence by those who hope for His salvation.  The attitude of post-Constantinian and modern Christianity is a man-made addition to the Kingdom of God movement that Jesus created, and that the ancient churches continued. That attitude grows out of the disastrous departure from the spirit and letter of the mind and heart of the Son of God, the judge of all the earth.

To fruitfully “believe in Jesus” requires that you also “believe Jesus,” including believing what He actually taught.  To give yourself the right to reinterpret what He actually said into what you want Him to have said, is to demonstrate the absence of the “fear of God” (2 Corinthians 7:1) and the “terror of Christ” (2 Corinthians 5:1), and demonstrates that you do not really “know God,” and that you run the risk of fulfilling 2 Thessalonians 1:8 (“…in flaming fire taking vengeance on those who do not know God, and on those who do not obey the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ”).

Footnote:

1. “Against Celsus,” ch.73, 75. The Ante‑Nicene Fathers, Vol. IV, p. 667-668.

SHAWN’S VIEW

My friend and I are both proceeding from a basic agreement that the Bible means what it meant and there is no ambiguity in Jesus’s choice of words. Although we both cite Old Testament references, I am not certain that we both view them as equally relevant to those of the New Testament. Certainly, we are not the first people of good will to disagree on this matter. History records that Christians have been divided on the topic practically from the time of Christ’s resurrection—particularly on the issue of what has come to be known as “just war.” Some have willingly donned the uniform of their nation state to face its enemies in armed conflict while others have chosen to reject service on moral grounds and remain pacifists. For the most part it has been a matter of conscience rather than courage. 

The apostle Paul told a young pastor, “All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness.” (2 Timothy 3:16) Consequently, the entire Bible must be considered in a conscientious analysis of this issue. Evil and violence are coded into human DNA and God’s judgment, sometimes by human hands, is sanctioned. God used the king of Babylon, Nebuchadnezzar, to accomplish his will. If he would use a bad person to punish using violence, it stands to reason he would use a good guy with a gun to protect the innocent. He often accomplishes his sovereign will using flawed humans. 

Institutional violence or “Just War” may have begun as early as Abraham. Resulting from war involving Chedorlaomer’s coalition of kings (Genesis 14), Lot, Abraham’s nephew was captured. He may have simply been in the wrong place at the wrong time when war broke out, but Abraham went after him and rescued him by force. Rather than being rebuked by God, Abraham was blessed. If Sodom and Gomorrah are any indication, God did not need Abraham or any other human, for that matter, to punish wrong doers. He permitted, even rewarded violence when Abraham, Moses, Joshua, Gideon and David were used to accomplish his will. Hebrews 11 praises Abraham, Moses and Gideon as men of faith. If war is always sinful, how could a holy God direct that it be carried out, often in a most ruthless fashion by those faithful to him? The Apostle John and King David both recorded that Jesus, himself, will return as a warrior king. If Christians accept God’s immutability, one is left to ask what changed between Joshua and the eventual return of Jesus? The counterpoint essay argues that Jesus’s teaching changed everything. My position, however, is the difference may be contextual rather than substantive.

Jesus entered a world controlled by Rome. No earthly power would be able to challenge her militarily for over 300 years. During Christ’s ministry, a sort of guerrilla force, the Zealots, also known as Sicarii (dagger men) attacked those seen to be friendly to Rome. They were seen as more of an annoyance than a threat. Jewish resistance was destined to fail, culminating in the fall of Masada in 73 AD. Advising Christians to obey those in authority was a practical matter of survival. Neither the Jewish majority nor the fledgling members of the Way posed a genuine threat to Rome. Christians also lacked the wherewithal to stand against Jewish authorities. Both the Jewish majority and Rome would eventually persecute them for their faith. There was no point in calling down fire on their own position through armed opposition. That, however, was not the rationale for Jesus’s instruction to turn the other cheek in Matthew 5:39. 

At the time God gave his judicial rules to Moses, government as we have come to accept it did not exist, retribution was a way to obtain rational, balanced justice. God’s directive was intended to be a system of proportional punishment known as lex talionis. The purpose of God’s law was to prevent vengefulness blinded by rage—hitting back harder than one had been hit. It was intended as an official regulation for the judiciary, not freedom for the individual to take the law into his or her own hands. It also served to control excesses by the judiciary in response to public opinion or pressure. Because of the restraint it introduced, lex talionis stood as a humane, moderating influence that curbed vendettas and blood feuds resulting in unlimited retaliation.

Lex talionis characterized by the phrase “eye for eye and tooth for tooth appears three times in the Old Testament: Exodus 21:24, Leviticus 24:20 and Deuteronomy 19:21 and was intended for literal application. God gave that instruction to avoid unreasonable or excessive punishment, not to urge humankind to insist upon it in every situation. The goal was to ensure the punishment fit the crime.

The scribes and Pharisees had distorted God’s original intent of lex talionis. We are all born with a strong desire for revenge and as the Jewish leaders sought to ingratiate themselves with the people rather than to please God by pandering to the people’s darker nature. What was supposed to be a judicial principle was turned into something bordering on individual lawlessness. Ironically, in many cases, by the time of Jesus, monetary restitution had largely replaced physical mutilation. Consequently, one is left to surmise that not only had the law been subverted, but it was being unequally applied by the religious authorities. 

In his Sermon on the Mount Jesus said that retribution, even proportional retribution, has no place in the life of a disciple. He wasn’t commenting on the appropriateness of God’s judicial rules. His intent was to teach his disciples to reject the base, animal instinct that makes us want to respond in kind to an actual or perceived offense. Retribution, not self defense or the defense of innocents, was behind his direction to turn the other cheek. During his arrest, one of Jesus’s disciples cut off the ear of the high priest’s servant and Jesus responded with, “Put your sword back in its place. . . .for all who draw the sword will die by the sword”(Matthew 26:52) He did not rebuke the disciple who had likely used a sword Jesus had instructed followers to obtain in order for him to be “numbered with the transgressors” ( Luke 22:36-37). He did not want the disciple to stand in the way of God’s plan for the salvation of humankind, nor did he wish to give the impression his message was one of rebellion or resistance.

Jesus opposes retribution and retaliation in any form. His intention is to establish a “greater righteousness,” a different understanding of how we should live as the people of God. His is an alternative set of values and his instructions are intended solely for us, not our unbelieving neighbors. Matthew 5:39 is all about how we should respond when something is done to us as individuals. It involves an essentially non-self-centered approach to ethics under the Holy Spirit’s leading, which puts the interests of others before our personal rights or possessions. Unfortunately, this passage has been used as a basis for pacifism and even prompted calls for the elimination of law enforcement. I thank that is an incorrect conclusion. It is a nation’s and an individual’s responsibility, believer or non-believer alike, to stand against evil and protect the vulnerable. As citizens we may have a role to play in that response. Until Jesus returns to establish his earthly reign, the military and the criminal justice systems are both necessary to prevent chaos and keep people safe. If our country calls us to duty, we are expected to answer.

Returning to the exhortation to turn the other cheek, we must keep in mind there is a difference between a personal slight and threat of serious injury or death. A blow to the right cheek was considered a serious insult, but certainly was not life-threatening. Slapping with the right hand was often a back-handed blow to the right cheek, which was considered insulting and retribution or reciprocation was a matter of honor. Jesus tells his disciples to forgo any benefit to which he or she may be legally entitled—to accept the insult without responding. In fact, we are told to go even further. He tells us to offer the left cheek, opening the door to a further, if more painful, insult. 

It is not an injunction against self defense, police or military service. While it is never a good idea to make an argument from silence, I believe if the Lord intended for his followers to avoid all possibilities of violence, he or Peter would have instructed the soldiers to whom they ministered to leave the army. When given the opportunity, even John the Baptist when asked specifically by soldiers what God required, failed to condemn violence in the performance of duty (Luke 3:14). Admittedly, the question was posed prior to Jesus’s ministry, but one could not ask for a more perfect scenario to introduce pacifism. Furthermore, if Jesus meant to instruct his followers to be pacifists, he probably would not have used a societal rebuke to make his case. In fact, in the passage cited from Matthew 26, above, Jesus said he could call on twelve legions of angels to fight for him if what was happening did not conform to the will of the Father.

Choosing to employ violent means is a personal decision. I cannot condone my use of violence for self-defense but would not hesitate to use it to protect others, especially those I am charge with protecting. When I was a law enforcement chaplain, during ride-alongs I would often tell the deputy that I was a good shot and if they needed me, they could count on me using their rifle to protect them, but I would not use it to protect myself. My position has not changed. On October 25, 2019 the United States Concealed Carry website ran a blog written by Rick Sapp (http://www.usconcealedcarry.com/blog/a-personal-decision/) describing how a man of faith, Jim Ott, responded during a home invasion that included a severe, concussive blow to his head resulting in hospitalization, stitches and staples. Throughout the encounter his assailant, a known violent offender, taunted Ott to shoot him. Certainly Ott could have done so with the 9mm handgun he was carrying, but he chose not to because his tormentor eventually backed away. When asked why he did not fire, Ott responded with, “I’m a man of faith. I will not kill someone if I don’t have to.” In my mind, that is exactly what Jesus expects of his disciples.