In short, no. Bullwhip is ineffective in the hands of a rabbi unless used. The Lord of Hosts/Armies seems inconsistent with a pacifist perspective on handling evil. The flood - need I say more. Armageddon. The whole "turn the other cheek, coat/cloak," etc. was in the direct cultural context of going even further than Roman Law required of a subject nation rather than trying to throw off the Roman rule as many (including the Zealots, Iscarii and Pharisees) groups were pushing for. Not to mention that various warrior/soldiers came to faith with no mention of their being required to leave military life in conjunction with their new faith. My apologies for the terseness of my response, just trying to keep it brief.
I don't think they even had pacifiers back then ;)
Jesus said "Blessed are the Peacemakers." Don't you think that he practiced what he preached? Can you Imagine Jesus with a gun??
He Laid Down his Life, And Isn't that what our soldiers are doing in Iraq?
By the lexical definition of the word "pacifist" by the Merriam-Webster dictionary (Inclined or disposed to peace; not quarrelsome or unruly)I would say yes. He was not inclined toward violence for violence sake or violence as means of settling disputes (atleast that is what my studies have shown me).However, the definition reflecting our current culture has redefined the word to mean "a person totally opposed to war" (Oxford dictionary). In that case I would say no.For He WILL war. Our Christ has and will continue to war "against the rulers, against the authorities, against the powers of this dark world and against the spiritual forces of evil in the heavenly realms" (Eph. 6:12)that seperate Him from his bride.
Post a Comment