Biblical justification for harming or killing followers of Jesus

[Pavel Mosko]

“Deck stacking”? If you want to harden me in my position, that’s how to do it.

How would you respond if I said things like that about you?

Well, I already consider you hardened in your position. I just felt it was worth pointing out seeing you seem to be casting on shade on the pious Roman Centurions of the New Testament, creating doubt on if they were actually believers or not, when most folks would see them as something like Noahides of later Talmudic Judaism. Besides that, I found it fishy you being set to ignore or disregard the various Christian military martyrs and saints in the decades just before Constantine.

 

[Anchorite]

It was Ignatius of Antioch.
Ignatius of Antioch (c. AD 107–110) explicitly distinguishes Christianity as its own distinct faith and way of life in his seven genuine epistles (the shorter recension, widely accepted as authentic by scholars). These were written while he was being taken to Rome for martyrdom. He uses the term Christianismos (Christianity) substantively—among the earliest surviving examples of the word in this sense—and urges believers to live according to its principles rather than “Judaizing” (practicing Judaism or adopting its observances in a way that undermines grace and Christ’s centrality).

Long before Ignatius, Christianity was seen as a distinct religion apart from Judaism.

The apostle Paul spoke of the difference by calling Judaism “the Jews’s religion” in contrast to the church.


Galatians 1

13 For ye have heard of my conversation in time past in the Jews' religion, how that beyond measure I persecuted the church of God, and wasted it:

14 And profited in the Jews' religion above many my equals in mine own nation, being more exceedingly zealous of the traditions of my fathers.

 

[Matthias]

What biblical justification, if any, is there for Christians to call down harm or that God might kill any man?

Off the top of my head I recall two (James and John) asking Jesus if they should call down the wrath of God and he rebuked them.

Have you ever heard of one praying a prayer of imprecation (a spoken curse) by elders in the church while praying in the presence of the congregation?

No.

I've recently been hearing this defended as though it's okay for believers to pray for God to physically remove (kill) our enemies???

I think it’s fine to ask God to take away an enemy or to protect from an enemy but I don’t think asking God to kill an enemy is in the spirit of the teaching of Jesus and the apostles. Asking God to save an enemy falls well within the scope of the Great Commission.

 

[Pavel Mosko]

View attachment 86570

Christians killing fellow Christians and trying to rationalize it. We are here.

Christians killing non-Christians -> the mission field has become the killing field. We can’t get to that when we can’t get past Christians killing fellow Christians.

Nobody saying this, a complete Strawman. I am not Saul from Tarsus or the Sanhedrin, or even the Inquisition or the Albigensian Crusade who literally did this kind of thing!

 

[Matthias]

Well, I already consider you hardened in your position.

In light of my post # 33, that surprises me.

I just felt it was worth pointing out seeing you seem to be casting on shade on the pious Roman Centurions of the New Testament, creating doubt on if they were actually believers or not, when most folks would see them as something like Noahides of later Talmudic Judaism.

I appreciate that.

Besides that, I found it fishy you being set to ignore or disregard the various Christian military martyrs and saints in the decades just before Constantine.

I haven’t ignored or disregarded the history. I’ve written extensively about it.

 

[rwb]

Off the top of my head I recall two (James and John) asking Jesus if they should call down the wrath of God and he rebuked them.

No.

I think it’s fine to ask God to take away an enemy or to protect from an enemy but I don’t think asking God to kill an enemy is in the spirit of the teaching of Jesus and the apostles. Asking God to save an enemy falls well within the scope of the Great Commission.

This defines my view also. Thank you! Do you believe this manner of elders praying in the congregation is a reason to consider departing from this particular Church?

 

[Matthias]

Nobody saying this, a complete Strawman.

They have been saying it in discussions which have taken place in other threads. We won’t have to look far at all to find Christians rationalizing Christians killing fellow Christians in the wars of the nations.

I am not Saul from Tarsus or the Sanhedrin, or even the Inquisition or the Albigensian Crusade who literally did this kind of thing!

 

[Matthias]

This defines my view also. Thank you! Do you believe this manner of elders praying in the congregation is a reason to consider departing from this particular Church?

Have you discussed the matter privately with the elders and your pastor?

 

[lforrest]

Reminds me of the Christmas truce in WW1 has anything like that happened before or sense?

 

[rwb]

Have you discussed the matter privately with the elders and your pastor?

It's not happening in the Church I attend, but the elders and pastor of this particular denomination is rationalizing prayer that asks God to kill our enemies. They believe the Bible grants justification for this type of praying, especially in the Psalms. But all of their rationalizing comes from the OT before Christ came to establish the New Covenant.

 

[Matthias]

It's not happening in the Church I attend, but the elders and pastor of this particular denomination is rationalizing prayer that asks God to kill our enemies. They believe the Bible grants justification for this type of praying, especially in the Psalms. But all of their rationalizing comes from the OT before Christ came to establish the New Covenant.

I would try speaking with the elders privately and if that didn’t go anywhere - and it sounds to me like it probably wouldn’t - then I would depart.

 

[rwb]

I would try speaking with the elders privately and if that didn’t go anywhere - and it sounds to me like it probably wouldn’t - then I would depart.

Thanks Matthias, this is happening in the church my son attends, and yes, he spoke to elders and pastor and no it didn't go anywhere. I have encouraged him to consider leaving, but since his wife is not on board with that, it may create a whole new problem for him. Seeing this particular topic, I thought it might be helpful to hear from other Christians to know if this is common, because I've been attending churches for several years and I have never heard a prayer from anyone in the church that asks for God to remove by death anyone from this earth. It kind of sounds like making themselves judges of another person's heart. I can't help but think about Jonah when he didn't want to preach to Ninevah because he knew of God's compassion. God certainly did not tell him he was okay with that.. Thanks again, many blessings.

 

[Matthias]

What biblical justification, if any, is there for followers of Jesus to harm or kill fellow followers of Jesus?

None.

 

[Matthias]

I’m currently re-reading It Is Not Lawful For Me To Fight: Early Christian Attitudes Toward War, Violence, and the State, Revised Edition, written by Jean-Michel Hornus. I’ll be quoting from his book from time to time in this thread as I read through it again.

***

“No one really disputes that some Christians, especially in the first centuries, refused to bear arms, and that there were theologians who approved of and encouraged their refusal. But in a conscious or unconscious desire to prevent these facts from undermining the very foundations of traditional Christian moral theology concerning service to the state, numerous authors have retreated behind a fourfold defense system:

1. Only a tiny minority of the early Christians adopted the position of ‘conscientious objection,’ while the great majority adopted exactly the opposite stance.

2. The position of ‘conscientious objection’ was a late development which emerged only at the beginning of the third century, i.e., at a time at which doctrines more Platonic than Christian had begun to obscure and contaminate the teachings of the gospel.

3. Early Christian ‘conscientious objection’ was never more than a theoretical position held by a coterie of bloodless intellectuals. Neither in its concrete life nor in its official pronouncements did the Church accept this theory, which as a result remained the eccentricity of a few theological cranks.

4. There was only one reason why the Christians of this period refused military service: they rejected the idolatry which was intimately bound up with the life of the army. Never did they have the slightest objection to killing other men; but they stoutly refused to put themselves in a situation in which they would have to pay to the Roman emperor homage which they owed to God alone.”

(Jean-Michel Hornus, It Is Not Lawful For Me To Fight, p. 13-14)

Hornus sets the stage. These four assertions are what he is writing against.

 

[Matthias]

“In this book I attempt to refute these four assertions and to demonstrate that:

1. If there is relatively little surviving evidence of the Christians of the early centuries refusing military service, there is far less evidence of their accepting it - except at a later period. Therefore it is faulty logic to argue: ‘Since there is so little evidence of early Christians refusing military service, these refusals can only represent the position of a minority among the Christians.’ On the contrary, sounder logic would suggest the opposite: ‘Since there is at least some evidence of Christians refusing military service and practically none of their accepting it, the majority of believers must have been in favor of refusal.‘ This conclusion gains even more weight if we bear in mind that silence on this matter is explicable not only by the scarcity of our documents but also by the fact that, for social and political reasons, the Christians were rarely confronted by the problem of military service.”

(Ibid., p. 14)

 

[Matthias]

“2. To allege that Christian antimilitarism must have been a late development because prior to the third century there is hardly any evidence of it is almost to lie through omission. For to do so is to ignore the fact that during the first two centuries of the Christian era there was scarcely any patristic literature. When such literature began to appear, however, it is evident that it from the outset dealt with the theme of nonviolence - and it excluded the theme of military patriotism. The great treatises by writers such as Tertullian and Lactantius merely amplified systematically the propositions which their predecessors had already clearly enunciated.”

(Ibid., pp. 14-15)

 

[doctrox]

From the OP:

What biblical justification, if any, is there for followers of Jesus to harm or kill fellow followers of Jesus?

and

I was referring to any scenario at all.

As always, we seek balance in scripture to understand application of doctrine. While it is true that much New Testament teaching, including the Lord's examples of "turning the other cheek", "forgive them for they know not what they do", etc. are the higher law to be practiced by Christians, we also note examples where believers are given authority to act in an offensive manner:

Read what Paul brought upon Elymas the sorcerer when he interfered with the work of the Gospel in Acts 13:

"9 Then Saul (who also is called Paul), filled with the Holy Ghost, set his eyes on him,

10 And said, O full of all subtilty and all mischief, thou child of the devil, thou enemy of all righteousness, wilt thou not cease to pervert the
right ways of the Lord?

11 And now, behold, the hand of the Lord is upon thee, and thou shalt be blind, not seeing the sun for a season. And immediately there fell on him a mist and a darkness; and he went about seeking some to lead him by the hand."

In his second epistle to Timothy, Paul record this insight:

"14 Alexander the coppersmith did me much evil: the Lord reward him according to his works:

15 Of whom be thou ware also; for he hath greatly withstood our words. {our words: or, our preachings

16 At my first answer no man stood with me, but all men forsook me: I pray God that it may not be laid to their charge."

This verse is notable in how Paul, on one hand, acts in an imprecatory manner against the coppersmith, while interceding for those who failed to stand up for him (Paul). This same Alexander is also named in 1 Timothy 1:20, along with Hymeneus as a blasphemer whom Paul there turns over to Satan.

What appears to be a rather consistent pattern in scripture is the model of those whom we would label "reprobate" - according to Webster, "one morally abandoned or lost". Imprecatory action would be preceded by much intercession, striving with and attempts to bring a person to right standing. This was the model given by Christ in Matthew 18:7-20.

As Christians, we do not curse out of personal vengeance, hatred or malice, but strive with the person for a season until it becomes apparent that the person will not turn from unrighteousness. It also appears that there are special circumstances whereby we may deal with one in an imprecatory fashion:

1.) Where the work of the gospel is impeded and the will of God would be opposed.

2.) Where there appears to be no repentance, contrition or desire to turn from a path of unrighteousness.

3.) Where legal remedies are exhausted WITHOUT justice and the work and/or will of God is opposed.

In situations requiring examination of an imprecatory action, it would be my counsel to anyone to examine deliberately the scriptures and apply the examples outlined by Jesus and his followers. I believe the three points listed above will become obvious.

Imprecatory Prayer - The concept of offensive oriented combative prayer as seen in various Old Testament settings, particularly in the Psalms (6:10, 59:10, 79:12, 139:22, 143:12, etc.). While some superficially equate this practice as a curse that is antithetical to Christ's Scriptural admonition to love thy enemies, there are numerous New Testament passages that indicate imprecatory prayer is an appropriate weapon on occasion.

One final point: during the height of the tribulation, we see the two witnesses given power that:

" ... if any man will hurt them, fire proceedeth out of their mouth, and devoureth their enemies: and if any man will hurt them, he must in this
manner be killed."

Depending on how you interpret WHO the two witnesses are, it becomes apparent that the power of Elijah will be restored in some fashion to tribulation saints (see 2 Kings 2).

 

[Matthias]

“3. It is true that the actual behavior of the believers often contradicted the attitude affirmed by Christian thinkers. But this, alas, is hardly a unique phenomenon. Repeatedly throughout church history the same tension recurs - between the absolute demands of Christian preaching and the compromises made due to Christians’ weakness and lack of faith. These compromises are the mark of sin in the church. But it would be disastrous to conclude that, because certain of the faithful have been unfaithful to the teaching which they have received, infidelity should become the norm of Christian conduct. If antimilitarism had only been the position of a few eminent ethicists, and if others had considered this position to be exaggerated, why did these others not discuss this position and attack it? But in actual fact the Church did everything in its power to protect itself against the temptations of compromise in this area. The disciplinary measures which it decreed showed clearly enough that, although it welcomed the repentant sinner, it nevertheless condemned the weakness which led him to defy Christian teaching by accepting a military uniform.”

(Ibid., p. 15)

 

[Matthias]

“4. It is obvious that the early Christians stubbornly rejected idolatry. Since the writing of the Book of Daniel (if not before then), believers have recognized that this has been the underlying reality which has compelled them to offer resistance to the state. Thus, from the apostles facing the Sanhedrin to the German Confessional Church confronting Hitler, the terms of the struggle have remained exactly the same as those which the prophet had discerned. But does the idolatry involved in military service consist only of outward ceremonies, which today have become largely outmoded? Does it not rather pervade the entire system because it is based on a false scale of values? In the place of God, the nation and the military authorities receive adoration and obedience, and like Moloch they demand the human sacrifice which God forbids. I must also emphasize that the Christians of the centuries were motivated by another consideration which was at least as important to them as was their rejection of idolatry - their respect for life. Emphasis upon the former, true though it is, becomes a distortion of historical truth when it forgets the latter and conceals its existence.”

(Ibid., pp. 15-16)

 

[Matthias]

“I hope, then, to prove that, from the very beginning and throughout the first three centuries of the primitive Church, its teaching - not just the fancy of a few individuals - was constantly and rigorously opposed to Christian participation in military service. I hope also to prove that this opposition was not based on a particular situation - the cult of the emperor - but on a fundamental decision: to reject violence and to respect life. Finally I shall attempt to explain how and why this position, which was so firm and clear in its principle, was abandoned during the fourth century.“

(Ibid., p. 16)