Tag Archives: New Testament

Choosing Jesus, rejecting Paul

1 Reply

The other day a friend included this in a Facebook post:

“I take Jesus much more seriously than I do Paul.”

That statement didn’t sit well with me.

On the one hand, well… yeah. Jesus is Lord of Lords. He should be taken much more seriously than any other human.

But it seems to me that this friend was echoing a sentiment that I hear in the church today, a need to downplay the writings of Paul and emphasize the gospels. He wasn’t really talking about Jesus and Paul as individuals, but about their teachings.

Historically, churches of Christ have often been guilty of doing just the opposite, preaching Paul and ignoring the gospels. I’ve written before about the strange doctrine that would seek to relegate the gospels to a time long past, discounting their relevance and applicability to people today. That’s an extreme form of the traditional view that argues “The New Testament begins with Acts 2.” (I’ve heard that exact statement)

Today’s view would seem to be the expected pendulum swing that happens so often as churches, as people react to one view by going to the opposite extreme.

I want to spend a little time examining the “gospels only” approach to the New Testament. I’ll include the “red letters only” view as well, which tries to take quotes from Jesus and elevate them above the rest.

Feel free to voice some opinions now or wait until we start trying to cook some of these half-baked thoughts.

Why the New Testament doesn’t have a Torah

Leave a reply

While the Jews had their canon within a canon, what about the early church? The Jews emphasized the Torah above the other scriptures? What about early Christians? Specifically, how did they see the New Testament writings?

I would argue that the stratifying of authority took place during the years when the canon was in flux. That is, writings seen to be of lesser authority were not included as part of the New Testament. There were highly respected books like the Didache or 1 Clement that were read regularly, but not seen as part of the authoritative scriptures of the church.

There was debate about some of the accepted books, like 2 Peter or Jude. But for the most part, the books we use today were seen as holy scriptures. (And yes, I’m greatly simplifying decades and decades of study and debate)

I don’t place the epistles over the gospels nor vice versa. I do read the varying literary sections in different ways, which helps explain why I don’t take Revelation literally (Jesus isn’t a slain lamb with seven horns and seven eyes)

I guess the huge difference between the Old Testament and the New Testament is that the Old Testament had books that were expected to be read as law; that’s why the Torah was/is seen differently. The New Testament lacks such legal code. There are commands and instructions throughout the New Testament writings, but there is nothing similar to what we find in the laws of the Torah.

That’s where I ended up on this mental side trip. How about you?

Good soldiers of Jesus Christ

1 Reply

One other New Testament point against pacifism needs to be examined. What about the positive references to soldiers? Why would Paul compare Christian life to soldiering if being a soldier was inherently sinful? Why encourage Timothy to endure hardship as a “good soldier of Christ Jesus” if being a soldier were unthinkable?

It could be pointed out that the New Testament does use bad people to teach lessons: the unjust steward in Luke 16, the corrupt judge in Luke 18, the idea of Jesus coming as a “thief in the night.” But that doesn’t seem to be the case here. Christians aren’t told to imitate any of those men, yet Timothy is told to be like a soldier.

I think we have proof yet again that military life was not repugnant to the early church. This seems to fit with the Book of Acts, where Paul and others seemingly showed courtesy and respect to military men. (Though it should be pointed out that respect was shown to all men; Jesus and His followers only showed anger and condemnation toward those who pretended to be religious but had ungodly hearts)

This is a far cry, however, from Christians choosing to become soldiers. As I pointed out in the comments on Tuesday, pagan worship was an integral part of Roman public life. There was no separation of church and state. Ritual sacrifices were a regular occurrence in military life. It would have been extremely difficult for a Christian to be part of the army without being pressured to be a part of those pagan activities. Rome’s triumphs were victories for Rome’s gods; could Christians contribute to that?

My understanding of 2 Timothy 2:4 prevents me from considering a military life, even as it refers to soldiers. (!) How can I, as an ambassador of the Kingdom of Heaven, pledge my loyalty to an earthly kingdom? How can I get involved in “civilian affairs” while I’m serving as a soldier of Christ? I don’t see how I can serve two masters, being a soldier of Christ and a soldier of a human nation.

Could what we see in the New Testament possibly be the path for us: respect for those who serve, yet separation for ourselves? That’s the path I feel called to at present. I’ll present more of the whys next week.

[The artwork is of Sabbas Stratelates, 3rd century Christian who became a general in the Roman army, then was martyred upon refusing to renounce his faith. Taken from Wikimedia Commons]

The Bible & War: A Pacifist New Testament Reading

7 Replies

Yesterday we surveyed the New Testament with non-pacifist eyes. Today we’ll put our other lenses on.

What are some of the passages typically used by pacifists? Here are a few that come to mind:

  • The Sermon on the Mount. If Romans 13 is the trump card for their opponents, the Sermon on the Mount is the Ace of Spades for pacifists. Sayings like “Do not resist an evil man,” “Turn the other cheek,” and “Love your enemy” seem to support the pacifistic view.
  • Luke 22:38. Where many non-pacifists find encouragement in Jesus’ mention of buying swords in Luke 22, pacifists point to his sharp response when the disciples produce two swords. Pacifists take “That is enough” as a rebuke of the disciples’ misunderstanding of Jesus’ words.
  • Jesus’ rebuke of Peter in Gethsemane. When Peter drew a sword to defend Jesus, Jesus sharply rebuked him. Matthew records this:

    “Put your sword back in its place,” Jesus said to him, “for all who draw the sword will die by the sword.” (Matthew 26:52)

  • Jesus’ reply to Pilate about His kingdom:

    “My kingdom is not of this world. If it were, my servants would fight to prevent my arrest by the Jews. But now my kingdom is from another place.” (John 18:36)

    Pacifists argue that Jesus’ kingdom is still other worldly, so fighting is inappropriate.

  • Paul’s teachings in Romans 12:14-21 about avoiding vengeance, not repaying evil with evil, and living at peace.
  • The Book of Revelation. The message of Revelation, directed to an oppressed church, was one of submission and patience, not uprising and rebellion. The wicked would be punished, but not at the hands of the righteous.

Those are the primary passages that come to mind. Lots of reasoning can be done apart from these passages, both in favor of and against pacifism, but I think these are the texts that are normally referenced.

I plan to do some analysis of all of this beginning next week. For now, I want to feel that we’ve done a proper survey. So please point out any texts that have been missed along the way.

The Bible & War: A Non-Pacifist New Testament Reading

8 Replies

Having done a quick survey of the Old Testament, we move to the New Testament. I’d like to say that things really come into focus, but we only have to read a bit among Christian writers to realize that isn’t so.
As best I can, let me present the passages used by the pro-involvement side (choosing my terms carefully). As I move farther away from this view, it’s harder for me to objectively present these arguments, so I encourage others to comment and help us keep balance.

  • In Luke 3:14, when soldiers come to John the Baptist asking what they should do to show their repentance, John tells them to not extort and to be content with their wages. Not only are they not told to leave the military, they are not given any instructions about limiting their participation.
  • Several soldiers are presented in a favorable light, such as the Roman centurion who showed great faith in Jesus (Matthew 8), Cornelius (Acts 10) and numerous Roman officers in the book of Acts.
  • In Acts, when a group of Jews sought to kill Paul, Paul sought protection from the Roman military.
  • Paul compared Christian life to military life. (passages like Ephesians 6:10ff and 2 Timothy 2:3-4)
  • Jesus said that He had not come to bring peace but a sword. (Matthew 10:34)
  • Jesus told His followers that they would need swords in the future. (Luke 22:36)
  • Though many think of Jesus as the Prince of Peace, He is also portrayed as one who will punish God’s enemies. (passages like 2 Thessalonians 1:5-10 and Revelation 19)
  • Jesus strikes down the nations with a sword in Revelation.

Are there other New Testament passages that should be presented when making a case for Christians participating in the military?

Edit [9:20 a.m., 5/11/11]: I left out the text of texts, the trump card of trump cards—Romans 13. Apologies. Christians must submit to the government which bears the sword and has been charged with punishing evildoers. That is a very important text.