The Direction

  From here I hope to take the reader through the process that led me to a type of Christian Pacifism. If you are lost at any point or disagree along the way then you will disagree with the conclusions I ultimately come to. At the very least, it will give you a better understanding of why someone would come to such a conclusion and at the most, prove to be a Biblical alternative to what you have been taught. I started off this blog by saying that it is very possible that we have “spiritual blind spots” in this age and that we are arrogant to think that we, the church (whichever denomination you happened to be affiliated with) has Christianity fully figured out. Whether we like it or not, we are products of our time. The Bible should be the authority in these matters and that is why we started from the Old Testament and are working our way to the present day. Only by building upon what is true from the start can we understand why we are called or not called to do certain things now. 

  This is the outline of the process I hope to articulate correctly. (1) During the Old Testament times Israel was fully justified in war and conquest in part because of God’s direct commands to do so. Under certain circumstances killing was also justified under the written Law. (2) Simply because it was justified then doesn’t make it justified now. (3) In light of the transition from the Old Covenant to the New Covenant and the advent of Jesus Christ on earth, there is a new and greater Law, one both written on our hearts and recorded in the teaching of Jesus. (4) These teachings properly understood will lead the follower of Christ into a different and better ethic expressed by the New Covenant teaching (i.e. the NT). (5) The variations of ethical applications may vary depending on the situation, but the overall thrust of what is taught in the New Testament is different (in ways) compared to the Old Testament teachings. This is less of an issue of different “Testaments” and more of an issue of different “Covenants.” So the previous post by Shannon discussed the 1^st point and now we move to the 2^nd.       

   It is clear that Israel was justified in killing throughout the Old Testament. When looking to the warriors mentioned in Hebrews 11 it is clear that they were used by God to do great things. God was accomplishing his purposes through these men but it is important to note that the writer(s) of those Old Testament books only described what happened; the authors didn’t prescribe a lifestyle that we should all adhere to. That is the nature of reading the literary genre historical narrative. There are certain things we should take from the text and other things we shouldn’t. Simply because God calls David a man after his own heart doesn’t therefore mean we should emulate his entire life. Also, simply because Samson had great faith doesn’t therefore mean we should do what he did. He was motivated by pride the majority of his life. Also, we must recognize that we are not Israel living in the Ancient Near East, and unless we want to subject ourselves to every aspect of the Law, we cannot pick and choose certain teachings as valid and others as arbitrary. That isn’t to say that we don’t look to the ethical teachings of God in the Old Testament as a guide for both personal and public life, or even look to the Ten Commandments as a guide by which to govern a people group. The point that is important to take away is—something obviously has changed between the Old Testament and the New Testament. And as I mentioned above, it is the Covenant that has changed things and has made arbitrary some teachings in the Old Testament and has reinforced others. I say all of this in light of some that believe that, “Because there is killing and war in the Old Testament, God supports it now.” Or some say, “Because David was a man after God’s own heart, and he was a warrior, it is ok to go to war.” Or lastly, “God’s people killed and went to war and because God doesn’t change, he supports those today.” The conclusions drawn from the first part of those statements don’t necessarily follow if it can be shown that the New Covenant discontinued the type of conquest seen in the Old Testament. If that is true—then those claims, and claims in the same vain, don’t stand.

  If this is the first time reading on these topics take note that steps 1-4 aren’t the controversial part but rather the application of 5 is what most people would disagree with me on. With that being said, if 1-4 aren’t established properly then you might have trouble seeing my application when it comes to 5.