I was recently asked to comment on Yoder's use of Jn 13:34 as a prooftext of pacifism. Here is my reply:
1.Yoder is assuming that love is incompatible with violence. However, that’s far from obvious. In a fallen world, it isn’t possible to be loving to everyone every time. For in a fallen world, people do harmful things. If you’re loving to the perpetrator, then your unloving to his past or prospective victims. If you refuse to restrain the perpetrator by force, then how is your pacifism loving to the victim? And if you refuse to punish him, that’s unloving to his victims since it denies them a just recompense.
Or, to take another example, we might spank a 2-year-old who runs out into a busy intersection. He’s too young to be amendable to reason. But he understands pain. The fear of corporal punishment deters him from repeating that risky behavior. It’s “violent,” but loving.
2.Jn 13:34 couldn’t furnish a prooftext for pacifism since, in context, it’s referring to in-group love rather than out-group love. Christians are commanded to love one another. So the scope of the command is restricted to members of the covenant community.
Of course, that doesn’t preclude the possibility of out-group love. But Yoder will need to find a different prooftext to swing that argument. A prooftext for pacifism would require a reference to one’s enemies–not fellow Christians. And even then, it would be subject to other qualifications (see above, #1).
3.What makes the new commandment new?
i) The explicit differential factor is a new standard–the example of Jesus.
Indeed, it’s more than exemplary. It’s grounded in his redemptive death for his own (cf. 13:1). Christians love one another as the reflexive response to God’s love for them.
There are likely one or two implicit differential factors as well:
ii) This is a command for members of the new covenant community.
iii) And Ridderbos thinks that this is new, in part, because the coming of the Paraclete will create a new ability (through spiritual renewal) to keep this commandment.
I’m not sure about that interpretation, but it’s worth considering. (Hard to prove or disprove since we can’t enter into the experience of pre-Christian believers.)
4.BTW, the command is outward looking (v35) as well as inward looking. It includes a missionary dimension. However, even that is oriented to members of the in-group. To those the Father gave Jesus. Present and prospective members of the new covenant community. The ingathering of God’s elect.
What is your working definition of love?
ReplyDeleteActing in the best interests of another.
ReplyDeleteMatthes 5:44 "But I tell you: Love your enemies[i] and pray for those who persecute you, 45that you may be sons of your Father in heaven"
ReplyDeleteI would imagine that "enemies" includes those outside the body of Christ, no?
This isn't to say that acting in their best interest can't include imprisoning them. Yet, it seems that a prayer to call down God's wrath on someone (i.e., to pray and hope for their destruction) runs contrary to this passage.
JOHN SAID:
ReplyDelete"I would imagine that 'enemies' includes those outside the body of Christ, no?"
You suffer from a constitutional inability to deal with the actual argument. That's because you don't know how to listen. You're just waiting for the other person to finish so that you can change the subject and rattle off your talking points.
I wasn't responding to a question about Mt 5:44, now was I? Rather, I was responding to a question about Jn 13:34. Namely, is this a prooftext for pacifism.
"This isn't to say that acting in their best interest can't include imprisoning them."
Of course, that disregards the issue of whether we can act in everyone's best interests. What happens when the best interests of one person come into conflict with the best interests of another person?
It might not be in the best interests of the sniper in the clock tower to be shot and killed by the SWAT team sharp-shooter, but it's in the best interests of the innocent bystanders who are pinned down, not to mention gun-shot victims who are bleeding to death because the paramedics can't get to them as long as the sniper is doing his thing.
"Yet, it seems that a prayer to call down God's wrath on someone (i.e., to pray and hope for their destruction) runs contrary to this passage."
You mean, like Rev 6:10?
Steve wrote, “Acting in the best interests of another.”
ReplyDeleteWho gets to define what is in a person’s best interests? For example, could being condemned to hell be in a person’s best interest since they will be glorifying God by being condemned, and glorifying God is in a person’s best interest?
hmmmm, unsophisticated, yep, you are!
ReplyDeleteMight I intrude? Having heard no objection, here goes:::>
One asked: "....?Who gets to define what is in a person’s best interests?....".
That's a great question and not everybody will love the answer!
Those called, chosen, selected and Elected to Adoption into the Family of God will define what's in a person's best interests and will love the answer. I know that's a bold assertion!
Everybody else won't. Why?
Here's my two cents about it.
We have probably all read or participated in a debate about the word "all" in the John 3:16 verse debates as to the meaning of and inclusion of who of/for the word "all" in John 3:16?
All means all the Elect.
Here is all I am going to say about it.
That verse, John 3:16, begins with "God [so loved]".
It's to this view, "how" God so loved that I give this answer.
I would preface it by saying I want to put into context three Greek Words. The Greek words one needs to consider in answering how God goes about loving us, are, bios, zoe and psuche.
Bios
βίος
bios
bee'-os
A primary word; life, that is, (literally) the present state of existence; by implication the means of livelihood: - good, life, living.
Zoe
ζωή
zōē
dzo-ay'
From G2198; life (literally or figuratively): - life (-time). Compare G5590.
Psuche
ψυχή
psuchē
psoo-khay'
From G5594; breath, that is, (by implication) spirit, abstractly or concretely (the animal sentient principle only; thus distinguished on the one hand from G4151, which is the rational and immortal soul; and on the other from G2222, which is mere vitality, even of plants: these terms thus exactly correspond respectively to the Hebrew [H5315], [H7307] and [H2416]: - heart (+ -ily), life, mind, soul, + us, + you.
Some may have heard the expression: "...trickle down economics"?
Here's one, "...Trickle up economics"!
Here's Jesus explaining the understanding of "how God so loved us":::>
Joh 15:9 As the Father has loved me, so have I loved you. Abide in my love.
With that verse one could say God moves down to the earth through His Son, Jesus Christ and through Him loves me. That's akind to trickling down.
But now, here is the trickle up approach as John puts it so clearly showing his understanding of just how God so loved the world thus defining the best interests of people:
Joh 15:10 If you keep my commandments, you will abide in my love, just as I have kept my Father's commandments and abide in his love.
Joh 15:11 These things I have spoken to you, that my joy may be in you, and that your joy may be full.
Joh 15:12 "This is my commandment, that you love one another as I have loved you.
Joh 15:13 Greater love has no one than this, that someone lay down his life for his friends.
continue:::>
test to see if I can make another comment.
ReplyDeleteUNSOPHISTICATED SAID:
ReplyDelete"Who gets to define what is in a person’s best interests?"
Since that objection could be redirected to whatever alternative definition you propose, it's self-refuting.
"For example, could being condemned to hell be in a person’s best interest since they will be glorifying God by being condemned, and glorifying God is in a person’s best interest?"
It's not beneficial to the damned to be damned, although it may be beneficial to second parties.
natamllc said...
ReplyDelete"Might I intrude? Having heard no objection, here goes."
I wouldn't dare censure you. If I tried, you might scalp me! :-)
When one makes a division of understanding "how" God so loved basis John 15 one will end up here understanding just what it means to love God and our neighbor.
ReplyDeleteThose three Greek Words, zoe, psuche and bios all are found here in the context of John 3:16 and John 15:::>
1Jn 3:11 For this is the message that ye heard from the beginning, that we should love one another.
1Jn 3:12 Not as Cain, who was of that wicked one, and slew his brother. And wherefore slew he him? Because his own works were evil, and his brother's righteous.
1Jn 3:13 Marvel not, my brethren, if the world hate you.
1Jn 3:14 We know that we have passed from death unto life, because we love the brethren. He that loveth not his brother abideth in death.
1Jn 3:15 Whosoever hateth his brother is a murderer: and ye know that no murderer hath eternal life abiding in him.
1Jn 3:16 Hereby perceive we the love of God, because he laid down his life for us: and we ought to lay down our lives for the brethren.
1Jn 3:17 But whoso hath this world's good, and seeth his brother have need, and shutteth up his bowels of compassion from him, how dwelleth the love of God in him?
Verses 14-15 you see the Greek Word zoe used.
In verse 16 twice you see the Greek Word psuche used.
In verse 17 you see the Greek Word bios used.
Seeing the Triune is "Eternal" the Life they give is equally eternal and that "Life" is Zoe.
The Life denied, which God does actively is as John teaches there at 1 John 3:16. This is one's mind, will and emotion. Our Heavenly Father with His Psuche "loved" His Son, Our Lord and Savior, raising Him up and receiving Him so He is to take His glorious place again, this time with a Wonderfully New Name which the Church receives by Christ's Work of Righteousness. All this is validated by the Holy Ghost vindicating Him before Our Heavenly Father.
The life we live in is the bios realm.
One should easily see by John at 1 John 3:17 that we too, as Christ and Our Heavenly, are to deny ourself and love our neighbor in this world including seeking their best welfare.
We, however, are also taught to reject those who err in the Faith as we see the Apostle Paul make a clear distinction about the err:
Tit 3:10 A man that is a heretic after the first and second admonition reject;
Tit 3:11 Knowing that he that is such is subverted, and sinneth, being condemned of himself.
As for those of the world, we are not the judge of their eternal place, leaving that "eternal" judgment to God. But, while we remain in this world we do have a responsibility to:::>
1Co 6:3 Do you not know that we are to judge angels? How much more, then, matters pertaining to this life!
The Body of Christ gets to define the best interests of both those a part of the Church and those outside Her.
Steve wrote, “Since that objection could be redirected to whatever alternative definition you propose, it's self-refuting.”
ReplyDeleteThanks for the reply. I thought I was asking a question, not making an objection. I’m not even sure what I would be objecting to.
Anyway, to rephrase the question, on what basis do we determine what is in a person’s best interest? For example, you wrote, “It *might* not be in the best interests of the sniper in the clock tower to be shot and killed by the SWAT team sharp-shooter…” How would you go about determining if it was or was not in the sniper’s best interest to be shot and killed?
Natamllc, Thanks for the reply. Since it is unlikely that all the elect will agree about what is in a person’s best interest in any given circumstance, how do we decide who is correct?
UNSOPHISTICATED SAID:
ReplyDelete"How would you go about determining if it was or was not in the sniper’s best interest to be shot and killed?"
If and when you ask a serious question, I'll give you a serious answer.
Thanks for the reply. I’m sorry you don’t think my question is serious. Let me try again.
ReplyDeleteSteve wrote, “It *might not* be in the best interests of the sniper in the clock tower to be shot and killed by the SWAT team sharp-shooter…” which suggests that there are perhaps circumstances wherein it *might* be in the best interests of the sniper to be shot.
Here’s a possible scenario. Suppose the sniper was a serial sniper who said he was going to kill more people? Would killing him be sparing him greater condemnation (and therefore in his best interest) since he would be unable to kill more people?
I guess a different question along the same lines might be, can a military person be loving the enemy while engaged in a firefight with them?
Unsophisticated,
ReplyDeleteyou wrote:::> "....Thanks for the reply. Since it is unlikely that all the elect will agree about what is in a person’s best interest in any given circumstance, how do we decide who is correct?....".
First, "you're welcome".
Second, I would let Jesus' Words answer that one this way:::>
Joh 3:4 Nicodemus said to him, "How can a man be born when he is old? Can he enter a second time into his mother's womb and be born?"
Joh 3:5 Jesus answered, "Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God.
Joh 3:6 That which is born of the flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit.
Joh 3:7 Do not marvel that I said to you, 'You must be born again.'
Joh 3:8 The wind blows where it wishes, and you hear its sound, but you do not know where it comes from or where it goes. So it is with everyone who is born of the Spirit."
Joh 3:9 Nicodemus said to him, "How can these things be?"
Joh 3:10 Jesus answered him, "Are you the teacher of Israel and yet you do not understand these things?
Joh 3:11 Truly, truly, I say to you, we speak of what we know, and bear witness to what we have seen, but you do not receive our testimony.
Joh 3:12 If I have told you earthly things and you do not believe, how can you believe if I tell you heavenly things?
Third, myself being Monergistic, by your very presupposition you betray yourself and it raises a doubt in my conscience that you are one of His Elect.
I am not saying that the gift of repentance will not come to you and you then be of one heart and soul with the Body of Christ. No, not at all.
Act 4:31 And when they had prayed, the place in which they were gathered together was shaken, and they were all filled with the Holy Spirit and continued to speak the word of God with boldness.
Act 4:32 Now the full number of those who believed were of one heart and soul, and no one said that any of the things that belonged to him was his own, but they had everything in common.
Act 4:33 And with great power the apostles were giving their testimony to the resurrection of the Lord Jesus, and great grace was upon them all.
What I am saying is that in the broadest sense of those Words, Acts 4:31-33 God's Elect are of one heart and soul, even in these days that we leave our comments in here.
UNSOPHISTICATED SAID:
ReplyDelete“Steve wrote, ‘It *might not* be in the best interests of the sniper in the clock tower to be shot and killed by the SWAT team sharp-shooter…’ which suggests that there are perhaps circumstances wherein it *might* be in the best interests of the sniper to be shot.”
No, it doesn’t suggest that at all. It’s just a form of ironic understatement. Idiomatic speech.
“Here’s a possible scenario. Suppose the sniper was a serial sniper who said he was going to kill more people? Would killing him be sparing him greater condemnation (and therefore in his best interest) since he would be unable to kill more people?”
i) I doubt it makes any difference to his eternal fate whether he murders 15 people or 30. His intention is to murder as many as he can. If he were killed before achieving his goal, that’s hardly a mitigating factor.
ii) Moreover, taking him out action is hardly for his own benefit. Even if it had that purely incidental side-effect, the sharpshooter kills him for the sake of the potential victims, not for the sake of the sniper.
“I guess a different question along the same lines might be, can a military person be loving the enemy while engaged in a firefight with them?”
Under that scenario you have to add so many caveats what it still means to be “loving” that I hardly think it’s worth the effort.
Steve/natamllc,
ReplyDeleteThank you for the replies.