Hi Dwight, you wrote:For those of you who are pacifists, did John the Baptist neglect to tell the soldiers that came to him, that they had to lay down their swords and get out of the military? They repented and were baptized by John. What about the centurion who Jesus said had great faith? Did Jesus forget to tell him that he too, must now forsake his career as a military commander?
I think I understand your position fully. I used to think as you do. I used to ask a man who believed in non-resistance ("Do not resist evil," Jesus said) what he would do if someone was assaulting his wife. He replied, "I don't know what I
would do, but I know what I
should do." I learned that non-resistance doesn't mean doing nothing, but it does mean not fighting with or killing the aggressor.
In Jesus' instructions not to resist evil, but to pray for enemies and do good to them, I doubt that He was advocating a double standard, one for an individual, and another for governments. If Jesus approved of fighting "just wars" then He would have behaved as the Jews expected the Messiah to behave, and deliver them from Roman oppression. But He didn't. Jesus said, ""My kingdom is not of this world. If My kingdom were of this world, My servants would fight, so that I should not be delivered to the Jews; but now My kingdom is not from here." Jesus did not command his servants to fight against Rome, because his Kingdom was the Kingdom of God. Since we disciples of Christ are also part of the Kingdom of God and not a worldly kingdom, we should do the same, and not fight a worldly war.
As for John the Baptist not telling the soldier to lay down their swords, and Jesus not telling the centurions to forsake his military career, the answer lies in the fact that that was not the central purpose of John and Jesus. One could compare this to Paul writing to Philemon. He didn't tell Philemon to free his slave Onesimus. Rather he indicated in his letter to him that Onesimus would serve him better than ever, now that he had become a Christian. But do we conclude from that the slavery is okay? A lot of Christians justified slavery in United States in precisely this way. They gave all the examples of slavery recorded in the Bible, in which it was not condemned. Paul did suggest that a Christian slave should gain his freedom if the opportunity presented itself, but not to strive for it or worry about it:
Were you a slave when called? Do not be concerned about it. But if you can gain your freedom, avail yourself of the opportunity. (1 Corinthians 7:21)
What about Christain policeman? Or is that an oxymoron?
Christians have owned slaves; Christians have become police officers. Christians have fought in wars. We can discuss the morality of these things with such Christians. Jesus and the early Christians did not to take steps to force such Christians to do the right thing. They hoped that they would see it for themselves.
What about Christians who are in government positions of authority, such as governors, or judges? Paul said that these authorities do not "bear the sword for nothing"?
Yes, he did. In the same context, he said, " For rulers are not a terror to good conduct, but to bad." But what do we do if the rulers are not a terror to bad conduct, but to good? That's what Brother Richard Wurmbrand said about the authorities in Romania where he was imprisoned and tortured for 14 years. Therefore he didn't regard them as authorities established by God.
Peter and John didn't regard the Jewish council in Jerusalem as God's authority. The council ordered them not to speak or teach any more in the name of Jesus.
But Peter and John answered them, “Whether it is right in the sight of God to listen to you rather than to God, you must judge, for we cannot but speak of what we have seen and heard.” (Acts 4:19, 20)
We need to be cautious with Paul's words, "The authorities that be are ordained of God". If that were universally true, you shouldn't call a curse on Mr. Obama, for he would be one of the authorities ordained by God. But clearly that statement is nor universally true, or we would have to include Hitler and Stalin as authorities ordained by God. Christians can avoid doing wrong in positions of government by not taking such positions.
There will be times when they must sentence someone to death for justice to be done.
I don't see where scripture ever supports pacifism.
I don't either. Wikipedia defines "pacifism" as "opposition to war, militarism or violence." The early Christian took no action to oppose war, militarism or violence, but they did take action to assist the victims of such, and also to love their enemies and do good to them.
Jesus teachings about loving your enemies must be understood in the right context.
These teachings should be understood in every context. Jesus never indicated otherwise.
Obviously, they are meant to apply to a personal level vs. a national level.
That is not at all obvious.
Also Jesus never said that a man should not practice self defense, when his life is threatened.
He didn't say that a man should not practise self-defense, period. Defending oneself is not in the same category as killing the aggressor.
Who struck down Ananias and Saphira? Did God do that?
The idea that anyone struck them down is mere speculation. In the book of Acts, Luke did not say that they were struck down. He said that Ananias died when he learned that Peter knew what he did. Perhaps he recognized that God had revealed the truth to Peter, and he died out of fear. Sapphira, too, when she was told, "The feet of those who have buried your husband are at the door, and they will carry you out,” she realized that the jig was up, and probably died from fear also. Indeed, the text says that "Great fear came upon the whole church and upon all who heard of these things." Fear can come upon people when they think they have covered something up, and that no one could possibly know, and then God reveals it.