Nonviolence?

[Franklin]

What is the basis of Mennonites supporting nonviolence? I am asking because I run a weekly online discussion of religious issues and we will discuss violence this week and I want to be able to explain the Mennonite position.

I have a few specific questions.

1. What is the Mennonite understanding of Luke 22:36?
2. What is the Mennonite view of Matthew 21:12? This is violence against property, not people. Are there any Mennonites who followed Jesus's example here?
3. How do Mennonites reconcile the numerous cases of God promoting violence and approving of violence in the Old Testament with their position?

[Soloist]

Luk 22:35  And he said unto them, When I sent you without purse, and scrip, and shoes, lacked ye any thing? And they said, Nothing.
Luk 22:36  Then said he unto them, But now, he that hath a purse, let him take it, and likewise his scrip: and he that hath no sword, let him sell his garment, and buy one.
Luk 22:37  For I say unto you, that this that is written must yet be accomplished in me, And he was reckoned among the transgressors: for the things concerning me have an end.
Luk 22:38  And they said, Lord, behold, here are two swords. And he said unto them, It is enough

Firstly, 2 swords isn’t enough by any stretch of imagination to mount an effective defense. Next Jesus said (ESV for easier reading)

For I tell you that this Scripture must be fulfilled in me: ‘And he was numbered with the transgressors.’ For what is written about me has its fulfillment.”

This is the passage referenced

Isa 53:12  Therefore will I divide him a portion with the great, and he shall divide the spoil with the strong; because he hath poured out his soul unto death: and he was numbered with the transgressors; and he bare the sin of many, and made intercession for the transgressors.

[Soloist]

I’m sorry I lost my next reply… my annoying internet. I will try to rewrite it tomorrow.

Although it’s the prophetic fulfillment of

Psa 69:9  For the zeal of thine house hath eaten me up; and the reproaches of them that reproached thee are fallen upon me

[Soloist]

So, as well as being a prophetic thing, Jesus also had the right as it was His Father's temple. He had every right to do what He did.

Now in modern times, we don't have a temple and while the church is just a building, I personally would take issue with selling things there, particularly on Sunday. By this, I don't take issue with a yard sale being held there but not on Sunday.

Now, I don't think I would feel comfortable destroying someone else's property and if someone was selling in our church, I would attempt to address it on one on one and then sic the leadership on them.

I'd likely find a different church if that was unsuccessful.

Your last question as for differences with new and old.

God had a theocracy basically then. He refers to Israel as His nation. In the new, Jesus refers to His Kingdom as not of the earth when talking to Pilate.

John 18:36-37
Jesus answered, My kingdom is not of this world: if my kingdom were of this world, then would my servants fight, that I should not be delivered to the Jews: but now is my kingdom not from hence.
Pilate therefore said unto him, Art thou a king then? Jesus answered, Thou sayest that I am a king. To this end was I born, and for this cause came I into the world, that I should bear witness unto the truth. Every one that is of the truth heareth my voice.

He doesn't forbid us from fighting for His Kingdom, but He says, His Kingdom is not earthly. Paul later says our weapons are not carnal, aka not earthly weapons of steel, gunpowder or any such earthly. As God's kingdom is no longer present in a earthly kingdom, but a spiritual one, our fight is spiritual.

2 Cor10: 3-6 For though we walk in the flesh, we do not war after the flesh: 4 (For the weapons of our warfare are not carnal, but mighty through God to the pulling down of strong holds;)3 5 Casting down imaginations, and every high thing that exalteth itself against the knowledge of God, and bringing into captivity every thought to the obedience of Christ;4 6 And having in a readiness to revenge all disobedience, when your obedience is fulfilled.

Much of the old was presented to show God's character which has not changed. God is withholding judgement as He has delivered the salvation to us.
At some point, the wrath of God will be felt again as in the old. God gave the nation of Israel time to repent repeatedly before casting judgment on them. This is our time to repent.

What I have said, may not be strictly Mennonite views, I don't know exactly what other people say, but I am a seeker and have chosen to identify with Mennonites in following Jesus.

[barnhart]

What is the basis of Mennonites supporting nonviolence?

This is right question to start from. It flows from an understanding that Jesus has the authority to rightly interpret the law of God. He is not only the atoning sacrifice, he is also our example that we should "walk even as he walked." He trusted his heavenly Father with everything, including his life, so must we. He instructed Peter to put away the sword, so must we. He instructed us to love our enemies and not strike back.

How do Mennonites reconcile the numerous cases of God promoting violence and approving of violence in the Old Testament with their position?

God made covenants with Adam, Noah, Abraham, Moses and David. These covenants are with different people, in different times and cover different things. We do not pine after these covenants because we look to Jesus as the "author of a new covenant". Hebrews chapter one developes this theme, God who spoke in many ways in the past through the prophets has in these last days spoken through his son..." We concern ourselves with the new covenant of Jesus, not the covenants of old.

I think soloist did a good job on the other questions.

[ken_sylvania]

3. How do Mennonites reconcile the numerous cases of God promoting violence and approving of violence in the Old Testament with their position?

Jesus said "Ye have heard that it hath been said....but I say unto you..." Jesus clearly instituted a new era, a new covenant. But even in the OT era, David was not allowed to build the temple because he had been a man of violence.

[Dan Z]

Maybe the counter questions are also helpful:

• 1) How do we follow Christ's instruction to love our enemies and pray for those who persecute us, yet at the same time do violence to them?
  
  2) How do we obediently "turn the other cheek" and refrain from repaying evil for evil, yet harm or kill those who threaten or hate us?
  
  3) How do we forgive seventy times seven and overcome evil with good, yet muster the rage to hurt or take the life of another person?
  
  4) How do we imitate Christ, who instructed his followers to sheath their swords rather than defend him, and who ultimately chose to show the greatest love possible by laying down his life for others (even though he could have led a rebellion or called upon an angel army), yet choose to strike out in violence against another human.

[Robert]

4) How do we imitate Christ, who instructed his followers to sheath their swords rather than defend him, and who ultimately chose to show the greatest love possible by laying down his life for others (even though he could have led a rebellion or called upon an angel army), yet choose [not] to strike out in violence against another human.

I think this is what you meant Dan.

I think others have made a good description of why we choose a path of nonviolence/passivism.

Pacifism and passivism are two different, although related things.





Not all pacifist are passive.

This is where I came to terms with pacifism as I transitioned from Protestant to Anabaptist.

Since Jesus completed the covenant with God and the Jews on the cross becoming the sacrificial lamb and scape goat all in one, a new covenant has been instituted. The old law and ways which we part of the old covenant are closed and gone. A new contract between God and humanity is in place. Jesus models and seals that contract with the resurrection.

God gives life. It is solely God's place to give and take life. If I take someone else's life, I am placing myself in the place of God and judging that that person's life is not as important as mine. This is counter to the teachings of Jesus and supported by the writings of Paul. If I kill someone, I am taking away any chance for God to work in their life later to bring them to Him. The thief on the cross, Saul's conversion, and many other examples in the New Testament stories show that God can and will call those who are broken towards wholeness in a relationship with God. It is not my place to take away that opportunity for someone else.

This does not mean that I should be passive and let others abuse or harm others. On the contrary, I should be just as willing to intercede with my life for someone else as Jesus did for me. My intercession should always fall short of taking someone else's life, yet it can include using law enforcement or prisons to restrain a person from harming others until God can transform that person.

Just War is wrong because it takes the lives of many who are sent to attack or defend along with the lives of many innocents who just happen to be in the way of the violence.

Levels of aggression may be required to stop someone from harming another, but that level should never be intended to take the life of the one aggressing on others.

What I describe here is pacifism not passivism/nonviolence.

[MaxPC]

Pacifism and passivism are two different, although related things.





Not all pacifist are passive.

This is where I came to terms with pacifism as I transitioned from Protestant to Anabaptist.

Since Jesus completed the covenant with God and the Jews on the cross becoming the sacrificial lamb and scape goat all in one, a new covenant has been instituted. The old law and ways which we part of the old covenant are closed and gone. A new contract between God and humanity is in place. Jesus models and seals that contract with the resurrection.

God gives life. It is solely God's place to give and take life. If I take someone else's life, I am placing myself in the place of God and judging that that person's life is not as important as mine. This is counter to the teachings of Jesus and supported by the writings of Paul. If I kill someone, I am taking away any chance for God to work in their life later to bring them to Him. The thief on the cross, Saul's conversion, and many other examples in the New Testament stories show that God can and will call those who are broken towards wholeness in a relationship with God. It is not my place to take away that opportunity for someone else.

This does not mean that I should be passive and let others abuse or harm others. On the contrary, I should be just as willing to intercede with my life for someone else as Jesus did for me. My intercession should always fall short of taking someone else's life, yet it can include using law enforcement or prisons to restrain a person from harming others until God can transform that person.

Just War is wrong because it takes the lives of many who are sent to attack or defend along with the lives of many innocents who just happen to be in the way of the violence.

Levels of aggression may be required to stop someone from harming another, but that level should never be intended to take the life of the one aggressing on others.

What I describe here is pacifism not passivism/nonviolence.

I quite appreciate this explanation as it resonates with a talk I had with some monks. We all agreed that killing, the taking of another's life, was robbing them of an opportunity to turn to Christ and repent later on in life (if not at the present moment).

[JayP]

Anabaptists should not be pacifists. They should be non resistant.