Subject:

������� THERE IS NO PACIFISM IN THE BIBLE ‑ by Rev. Bertrand L.

������� Comparet, A.B., J.D.

�� Date:

������� Sun, 9 Sep 2001 07:47:54 ‑0700

�� From:

������� "Bob Jones" <[email protected]>

���� To:

������� "Pastor Bob Jones" <[email protected]>

��������������������������������������������

THERE IS NO PACIFISM IN THE BIBLE

�

���� by Rev. Bertrand L. Comparet, A.B., J.D.����������������������

�

��������������������� It is reported that a Hindu recently undertook to rebuke

all the Christian nations, by asking "How can you reconcile Jesus

doctrine of non‑resistance with your

military armament, and with the wars you fight from time to time?

Which of you will return good for evil?" In speaking thus, the Hindu

smugly gloated over what he thought was an inconsistency

between our religion and our national conduct. Unfortunately, there

are even some Christians who are so ignorant of their own religion

that they become embarrassed at such accusations, and feel that

we must be guilty of inconsistency, even of wrongdoing. The

Hindu's ignorance we can

forgive, as he knows nothing of our religion beyond a few phrases

quoted out of context; but it is time for Christians to learn more

about what they claim as their own religion. We could ask the

Hindu, in return, how he can reconcile Premier Nehru's aggressive

attack upon Portuguese Goa, which Portugal has held since the

year 1510 ‑‑‑ how can he reconcile this aggressive warfare with

Nehru's lofty proclamations of his devotion to peace ‑that is,

whenever "peace" consists of leaving White Men in slavery.

�

��������������������� But we shall not be content to point out

inconsistencies in the attitude of the

Hindus. I want to prove to you today that our own conduct Is not

Inconsistent with our religion. In the first place, it is false to speak

of Jesus 'doctrine of non‑resistance.' In John 2:13‑16, the Beloved

Disciple reports that the first act of Jesus Christ's ministry in the

city of Jerusalem was to make a whip of ropes and

flog the money_changers out of the court of the Temple. Does this

look like nonresistance, cringing submission to the triumph of evil?

Indeed not! Nor was this all: Matthew 21:12‑13 and Mark 11:15‑17

both record that He repeated this cleansing of the Temple of the

evil anti‑Christians who infested it, during the last week before His

crucifixion. Jesus Christ, Himself, never tolerated evil, never

consented that it should be allowed to remain triumphant rather

than to resist it. Only in His crucifixion did He allow the forces of

evil to have their way: and this was not through any doctrine of

non‑resistance to evil, but only to fulfill the

purpose for which He had assumed a human body. He came here

for the express purpose of meeting death to pay the penalty for our

sins, in order to save us; if He had not submitted to crucifixion, His

purpose to save us would not have been accomplished. For this

reason only did He submit, and not because He ever believed in

letting evil triumph without resistance.

�

��������������������� But someone will say, "What about Matthew 5:38‑39?

'Ye have heard that It was said, an eye for an eye, and a tooth for a

tooth: But I say unto you Resist not him that is evil: but whosoever

smiteth thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also.'" No,

there is no inconsistency here, either. This advice was never given

to the nation, that we should surrender to China and leave the

world in slavery. It was given only to individuals ‑ and to particular

individuals, at that. Jesus was preaching to bring His truths before

all who had the qualities to respond to Him and

would become His disciples: these would be that first generation of

Christians whose responsibility above all else was to spread His

word, without being distracted by petty quarrels with other people.

�

��������������������� They were to face ridicule, contempt and hatred; every

day they would be given provocation by insults and injuries. If they

let themselves react with natural anger,

they would be in constant quarrels and fights; they would be

constantly arrested and in jail, not as noble martyrs to a great

cause, but as brawlers constantly fighting in the streets over

personal quarrels ‑ which would not be a good recommendation for

the new religion of Christianity. Even if they did not fight, but

looked to the law to vindicate their rights, this would make them

spend all their time and energy in lawsuits instead of their

missionary work. This was not the duty of the early Christians. But

that He did not intend that they should tamely let themselves be

slaughtered by ruffians is clear: In Luke 22:36, He told His disciples

that he that had no sword should sell his cloak and buy one.

�

��������������������� So many erroneous religious doctrines come from the

mistake of taking out of context words spoken for a certain time

and place, and trying to make universal,

eternal rules of them. In Matthew 14:19 and Mark 6:39, when Jesus

Christ was about to feed the multitude with a few loaves and fishes,

we read that "He commanded the multitudes to sit down on the

grass." This certainly doesn't mean that it Is a Christian's duty to go

around making people sit down on the grass: it was spoken only to

meet the special circumstances of a particular time and place and

no ‑ one should try to make a doctrine of it. So also with Jesus

Christ's instructions to the early Christians to stick to the job for

which He had chosen them, and not waste time quarrelling with the

wicked. But don't ever think that, if you see some ruffian trying to

rape your wife or daughter you should merely stand around

murmuring

pious platitudes about the desirability of good conduct. Your duty ‑

and I do mean DUTY‑ as a good Christian is to stop him, if you have

to kill him to do it.

�

��������������������� So much for the individual. But this Hindu was trying to

place Christian nations (not Nehru's India, nor China) under the

individual's restrictions. God always

distinguished between the rules for the individ_ual and the rules for

the nation.�

Particularly is this true of the Laws of War. It is only when we have

been guilty of evil conduct and disloyalty to our God that He has

allowed wicked nations to oppress us until we repented of our evil

ways; then He has Himself used us as His own servant and agent

to make war against those wicked nations. He began our training In

this early: when our ancestors came out of Egypt in the Exodus,

they were attacked by the Amalekites. For this, God said that He

would have war with Amalek from generation to generation until He

had utterly blotted out the remembrance of Amalek from under

heaven; and this duty He command_ed His people Israel to

perform, as we read In Exodus 17:14‑16 and Deuteron_omy

25:17‑19. But that is only the beginning: in Jeremiah 51:20, God

Himself said to our ancestors and to us, their descendants, "Thou

art My battleaxe and weapons of war: and with thee will I break in

pieces the nations; and with thee will I destroy kingdoms." Is there

anything pacif_istic about that? Evil must not be allowed to rule the

earth in triumph. To those who are good, you can speak in a

language they understand, the language of peace and reason.�� But

to those who are utterly evil, you must also speak in the only

language they understand. Russia and China can't understand

platitudes; they can understand superior force.

�

��������������������� Again, we read in the 7th. chapter of Judges how God

sent Gideon, with but 300 men, to deliver Israel from the huge army

of the Midianites; and he routed the

Midianites with the slaughter of 120,000 men. We are clearly told

that this was by "the sword of the Lord and of Gideon."

�

��������������������� Neither let yourself be misled by someone quoting,

"they that take the sword shall perish by the sword." Note that this

speaks to TWO swords: the sword of the

aggressor, who shall perish by the sword of the defender.

�

��������������������� Lest anyone should say that this is only a

characteristic of earthly men, a relic of the past, and that we should

look forward to a higher, nobler character to be attained in the

future, let us examine the Book of Revelation, in its description of

Jesus Christ when He returns to reign over all the world as King of

Kings and Lord of Lords. In Revelation 19:11, It says of Jesus Christ

that "In righteousness He doth judge and MAKE WAR." Jesus

Christ, Himself, recognizes that there can never be "peaceful

coexistence" between good and evil: one must certainly conquer,

the other must certainly perish; if good has not the will and the

courage to be the conqueror, then evil will rule supreme. So long

as evil exists, there will be wars: the wars of evil's aggression

against good, until good conquers and exterminates evil; and this

last great war to wipe out evil will be led by no less a general than

our Redeemer, Jesus Christ. When He comes, let Him find you, not

hiding under the bed In abject terror, but marching resolutely in the

ranks of His army.