Dake Bible Discussion Board ⇒ Should Soldiers Stop Soldiering?

[Spiritblade Disciple]

A while back, I read some interesting points that were made in a discussion concerning another topic. I found these points quite interesting.

So why did God not command soldiers to stop soldiering knowing that in defense they would have to kill? Just curious since you quoted one of the commandments.

Didn't He though?
What did John the Baptist tell the soldiers..."Do violence no man,..." (Luke 3:14)

To me, John the Baptist didn't tell the soldiers not to soldier. Nor, did he forbid warfare or the killing that occurs in battles.

The phrase, "Do violence to no man," is interesting to me. In my opinion, the best explanation of this that I have ever heard is that what John was talking about was when soldiers would exercise their talents off of the battlefield to take advantage of the general populace. He wasn't prohibiting them from following lawful orders in war.

In the explanation that I'm thinking of, it was pointed out that the word of "violence" is intimately connected with "violate." For example, when a person exercises self-defense, they aren't violating nor doing violence to their attacker. However, the attacker was seeking to violate and practicing violence against them. A police officer who uses necessary force against a person committing a crime isn't doing violence to them. Likewise, a soldier following a lawful order isn't violating or committing violence his opponent.

There are many biblical examples of soldiers rejoicing in the abilities that God gave them to do battle.

I like what Rev. Dake said about this passage:

The soldiers are told three things:

1. Terrify no man with the view of extortion or plunder.

2. Do not oppress any man.

3. Be content with allowances.

— Dake's Annotated Reference Bible: Containing the Old and New Testaments of the Authorized or King James Version Text.

I find that in line with the explanation that I was relaying, above, and in line with what I see from Strong's of the underlying Greek word... As well as the context of what was said. I think the New King James and other newer translations make this more clear for the modern reader.

Luke 3:14 New King James Version
Likewise the soldiers asked him, saying, "And what shall we do?" So he said to them, "Do not intimidate anyone or accuse falsely, and be content with your wages."

Luke 3:14 New American Standard Bible 1995
Some soldiers were questioning him, saying, "And what about us, what shall we do?" And he said to them, "Do not take money from anyone by force, or accuse anyone falsely, and be content with your wages."

Luke 3:14 New International Version 2011
Then some soldiers asked him, “And what should we do?” He replied, “Don’t extort money and don’t accuse people falsely—be content with your pay.”

Luke 3:14 New Living Translation, Second Edition
“What should we do?” asked some soldiers. John replied, “Don’t extort money or make false accusations. And be content with your pay.”

As I've said, elsewhere, I love the King James Version, but I try to remember that it was produced for a seventeenth century audience. As such, there are words and phrases that sometimes hold a different meaning to the modern reader than the translators intended. I am not saying that the King James Version is wrong, here. Rather, I'm saying that it is right, if rightly understood. I think Paul made a similar statement about the Old Testament Law.

1 Timothy 1:8 New Living Translation, Second Edition
We know that the law is good when used correctly.

Thank you for reading. What are your thoughts?

[Hill Top]

A while back, I read some interesting points that were made in a discussion concerning another topic. I found these points quite interesting.

So why did God not command soldiers to stop soldiering knowing that in defense they would have to kill? Just curious since you quoted one of the commandments.

Didn't He though?
What did John the Baptist tell the soldiers..."Do violence no man,..." (Luke 3:14)

To me, John the Baptist didn't tell the soldiers not to soldier. Nor, did he forbid warfare or the killing that occurs in battles.

The phrase, "Do violence to no man," is interesting to me. In my opinion, the best explanation of this that I have ever heard is that what John was talking about was when soldiers would exercise their talents off of the battlefield to take advantage of the general populace. He wasn't prohibiting them from following lawful orders in war.

In the explanation that I'm thinking of, it was pointed out that the word of "violence" is intimately connected with "violate." For example, when a person exercises self-defense, they aren't violating nor doing violence to their attacker. However, the attacker was seeking to violate and practicing violence against them. A police officer who uses necessary force against a person committing a crime isn't doing violence to them. Likewise, a soldier following a lawful order isn't violating or committing violence his opponent.

There are many biblical examples of soldiers rejoicing in the abilities that God gave them to do battle.

I like what Rev. Dake said about this passage:

The soldiers are told three things:

1. Terrify no man with the view of extortion or plunder.

2. Do not oppress any man.

3. Be content with allowances.

— Dake's Annotated Reference Bible: Containing the Old and New Testaments of the Authorized or King James Version Text.

I find that in line with the explanation that I was relaying, above, and in line with what I see from Strong's of the underlying Greek word... As well as the context of what was said. I think the New King James and other newer translations make this more clear for the modern reader.

Luke 3:14 New King James Version
Likewise the soldiers asked him, saying, "And what shall we do?" So he said to them, "Do not intimidate anyone or accuse falsely, and be content with your wages."

Luke 3:14 New American Standard Bible 1995
Some soldiers were questioning him, saying, "And what about us, what shall we do?" And he said to them, "Do not take money from anyone by force, or accuse anyone falsely, and be content with your wages."

Luke 3:14 New International Version 2011
Then some soldiers asked him, “And what should we do?” He replied, “Don’t extort money and don’t accuse people falsely—be content with your pay.”

Luke 3:14 New Living Translation, Second Edition
“What should we do?” asked some soldiers. John replied, “Don’t extort money or make false accusations. And be content with your pay.”

As I've said, elsewhere, I love the King James Version, but I try to remember that it was produced for a seventeenth century audience. As such, there are words and phrases that sometimes hold a different meaning to the modern reader than the translators intended. I am not saying that the King James Version is wrong, here. Rather, I'm saying that it is right, if rightly understood. I think Paul made a similar statement about the Old Testament Law.

1 Timothy 1:8 New Living Translation, Second Edition
We know that the law is good when used correctly.

Thank you for reading. What are your thoughts?

Do you feel then, that conscientious objectors are defying God?
I can't agree with your findings.
How can dropping a bomb that will indiscriminately kill hundreds or even thousands constitute "no violence"?
Please keep in mind that as Israel had no army, per-se, while under occupation by Rome, that the "soldiers" were actually policemen.
Two or three policemen could easily round up a "perp" without violence in those days.
Soldiering or policing are just not jobs for those loving their neighbor as themselves.
Leave the violence to those charged by God to do so.

[branham1965]

Great post Roger. Well written.

A while back, I read some interesting points that were made in a discussion concerning another topic. I found these points quite interesting.

So why did God not command soldiers to stop soldiering knowing that in defense they would have to kill? Just curious since you quoted one of the commandments.

Didn't He though?
What did John the Baptist tell the soldiers..."Do violence no man,..." (Luke 3:14)

To me, John the Baptist didn't tell the soldiers not to soldier. Nor, did he forbid warfare or the killing that occurs in battles.

The phrase, "Do violence to no man," is interesting to me. In my opinion, the best explanation of this that I have ever heard is that what John was talking about was when soldiers would exercise their talents off of the battlefield to take advantage of the general populace. He wasn't prohibiting them from following lawful orders in war.

In the explanation that I'm thinking of, it was pointed out that the word of "violence" is intimately connected with "violate." For example, when a person exercises self-defense, they aren't violating nor doing violence to their attacker. However, the attacker was seeking to violate and practicing violence against them. A police officer who uses necessary force against a person committing a crime isn't doing violence to them. Likewise, a soldier following a lawful order isn't violating or committing violence his opponent.

There are many biblical examples of soldiers rejoicing in the abilities that God gave them to do battle.

I like what Rev. Dake said about this passage:

The soldiers are told three things:

1. Terrify no man with the view of extortion or plunder.

2. Do not oppress any man.

3. Be content with allowances.

— Dake's Annotated Reference Bible: Containing the Old and New Testaments of the Authorized or King James Version Text.

I find that in line with the explanation that I was relaying, above, and in line with what I see from Strong's of the underlying Greek word... As well as the context of what was said. I think the New King James and other newer translations make this more clear for the modern reader.

Luke 3:14 New King James Version
Likewise the soldiers asked him, saying, "And what shall we do?" So he said to them, "Do not intimidate anyone or accuse falsely, and be content with your wages."

Luke 3:14 New American Standard Bible 1995
Some soldiers were questioning him, saying, "And what about us, what shall we do?" And he said to them, "Do not take money from anyone by force, or accuse anyone falsely, and be content with your wages."

Luke 3:14 New International Version 2011
Then some soldiers asked him, “And what should we do?” He replied, “Don’t extort money and don’t accuse people falsely—be content with your pay.”

Luke 3:14 New Living Translation, Second Edition
“What should we do?” asked some soldiers. John replied, “Don’t extort money or make false accusations. And be content with your pay.”

As I've said, elsewhere, I love the King James Version, but I try to remember that it was produced for a seventeenth century audience. As such, there are words and phrases that sometimes hold a different meaning to the modern reader than the translators intended. I am not saying that the King James Version is wrong, here. Rather, I'm saying that it is right, if rightly understood. I think Paul made a similar statement about the Old Testament Law.

1 Timothy 1:8 New Living Translation, Second Edition
We know that the law is good when used correctly.

Thank you for reading. What are your thoughts?

[luchnia]

There are many biblical examples of soldiers rejoicing in the abilities that God gave them to do battle.

Luke 3:14 New King James Version

1 Timothy 1:8 New Living Translation, Second Edition
We know that the law is good when used correctly.

Thank you for reading. What are your thoughts?

Good points.

There are many biblical passages about this. One could easily state that they were not commanded to stop what they were doing and even the fact that they were told to be content with their wages indicates they were to continue on - soldiering.

Basically do no wrong to any man, be content with your wages, and be ready for warfare which may require killing. Nothing is written/recorded that God ever changed this either.

[Spiritblade Disciple]

There are many biblical examples of soldiers rejoicing in the abilities that God gave them to do battle.

Luke 3:14 New King James Version

1 Timothy 1:8 New Living Translation, Second Edition
We know that the law is good when used correctly.

Thank you for reading. What are your thoughts?

Good points.

There are many biblical passages about this. One could easily state that they were not commanded to stop what they were doing and even the fact that they were told to be content with their wages indicates they were to continue on - soldiering.

Basically do no wrong to any man, be content with your wages, and be ready for warfare which may require killing. Nothing is written/recorded that God ever changed this either.

Exactly. The part about their wages is very telling.

[Hill Top]

There are many biblical examples of soldiers rejoicing in the abilities that God gave them to do battle.

Luke 3:14 New King James Version

1 Timothy 1:8 New Living Translation, Second Edition
We know that the law is good when used correctly.

Thank you for reading. What are your thoughts?

Good points.

There are many biblical passages about this. One could easily state that they were not commanded to stop what they were doing and even the fact that they were told to be content with their wages indicates they were to continue on - soldiering.

Basically do no wrong to any man, be content with your wages, and be ready for warfare which may require killing .Nothing is written/recorded that God ever changed this either.

My bible has no mention of "...and be ready for warfare which may require killing ".
You are adding to scripture with an accommodation for sin.
God has instituted police forces and armies to enforce "man's" laws, but He isn't using God's children to do it.
There are plenty of murderous types out there He can use to fulfill His will.
Love God above all else, and love your neighbor as yourself.
I can't shoot, or lie to, "myself".

[Spiritblade Disciple]

Great post Roger. Well written.

► Show Spoiler

A while back, I read some interesting points that were made in a discussion concerning another topic. I found these points quite interesting.

So why did God not command soldiers to stop soldiering knowing that in defense they would have to kill? Just curious since you quoted one of the commandments.

Didn't He though?
What did John the Baptist tell the soldiers..."Do violence no man,..." (Luke 3:14)

To me, John the Baptist didn't tell the soldiers not to soldier. Nor, did he forbid warfare or the killing that occurs in battles.

The phrase, "Do violence to no man," is interesting to me. In my opinion, the best explanation of this that I have ever heard is that what John was talking about was when soldiers would exercise their talents off of the battlefield to take advantage of the general populace. He wasn't prohibiting them from following lawful orders in war.

In the explanation that I'm thinking of, it was pointed out that the word of "violence" is intimately connected with "violate." For example, when a person exercises self-defense, they aren't violating nor doing violence to their attacker. However, the attacker was seeking to violate and practicing violence against them. A police officer who uses necessary force against a person committing a crime isn't doing violence to them. Likewise, a soldier following a lawful order isn't violating or committing violence his opponent.

There are many biblical examples of soldiers rejoicing in the abilities that God gave them to do battle.

I like what Rev. Dake said about this passage:

The soldiers are told three things:

1. Terrify no man with the view of extortion or plunder.

2. Do not oppress any man.

3. Be content with allowances.

— Dake's Annotated Reference Bible: Containing the Old and New Testaments of the Authorized or King James Version Text.

I find that in line with the explanation that I was relaying, above, and in line with what I see from Strong's of the underlying Greek word... As well as the context of what was said. I think the New King James and other newer translations make this more clear for the modern reader.

Luke 3:14 New King James Version
Likewise the soldiers asked him, saying, "And what shall we do?" So he said to them, "Do not intimidate anyone or accuse falsely, and be content with your wages."

Luke 3:14 New American Standard Bible 1995
Some soldiers were questioning him, saying, "And what about us, what shall we do?" And he said to them, "Do not take money from anyone by force, or accuse anyone falsely, and be content with your wages."

Luke 3:14 New International Version 2011
Then some soldiers asked him, “And what should we do?” He replied, “Don’t extort money and don’t accuse people falsely—be content with your pay.”

Luke 3:14 New Living Translation, Second Edition
“What should we do?” asked some soldiers. John replied, “Don’t extort money or make false accusations. And be content with your pay.”

As I've said, elsewhere, I love the King James Version, but I try to remember that it was produced for a seventeenth century audience. As such, there are words and phrases that sometimes hold a different meaning to the modern reader than the translators intended. I am not saying that the King James Version is wrong, here. Rather, I'm saying that it is right, if rightly understood. I think Paul made a similar statement about the Old Testament Law.

1 Timothy 1:8 New Living Translation, Second Edition
We know that the law is good when used correctly.

Thank you for reading. What are your thoughts?

Thanks, Billy.

[Spiritblade Disciple]

Do you feel then, that conscientious objectors are defying God?

I haven't really given much thought to conscientious objectors. I know there is one that was famous in the Pentecostal/Charismatic Movement (Howard Carter). I would have to give this more thought before deciding anything regarding them. And, I think it would probably have to be on a case by case basis.

I can't agree with your findings.
How can dropping a bomb that will indiscriminately kill hundreds or even thousands constitute "no violence"?

I don't think that is what John the Baptist had in mind when he spoke to the soldiers, but sending in legions of Roman soldiers to destroy a city was probably pretty close to the equivalent of dropping a bomb on a city, at least in those days. I remember when God "bombed" some cities and that was certainly not violence as no one was violated.

I think you're still not using the word "violence" in the same way that I am, at this point. Violence isn't the use of force. It is the misuse of force to abuse others.

Please keep in mind that as Israel had no army, per-se, while under occupation by Rome, that the "soldiers" were actually policemen.
Two or three policemen could easily round up a "perp" without violence in those days.

Again, when a police officer uses force, but does not misuse force, it isn't violence. They aren't violating anyone.

Soldiering or policing are just not jobs for those loving their neighbor as themselves.
Leave the violence to those charged by God to do so.

I actually think they are. If we love our neighbor, we will want to ensure they are safe from wrongdoers. And, ways to love our neighbors include working in law enforcement or the military. Those that work in these fields are willing to lay down their lives to protect others. To me, that is a clear demonstration of love.

To me, those that oppose this idea do not actually love their neighbors, at all. They seem to love the wrongdoers more than their neighbors.

But, then, I do not subscribe to the idea that everyone is my neighbor, either. I think it is likely that you may.

[luchnia]

My bible has no mention of "...and be ready for warfare which may require killing ".
You are adding to scripture with an accommodation for sin.

I simply do not understand why you don't get my point in my posts. Why accuse me of adding to scripture with an accommodation for sin? Where does that thought come from? The "ready for warfare" part is exactly what soldiers have to be prepared for. Part of their training is to prepare them to fight and kill when necessary.

A soldier killing to defend is not sin, period. If killing were sin, then God is full of sin and clearly you should see the danger of such an idea. Can you not see what you are against is what God has done many times in His righteous judgment?

[Hill Top]

Do you feel then, that conscientious objectors are defying God?

I haven't really given much thought to conscientious objectors. I know there is one that was famous in the Pentecostal/Charismatic Movement (Howard Carter). I would have to give this more thought before deciding anything regarding them. And, I think it would probably have to be on a case by case basis.

What differentiates one CO from another?
They will not take up arms against men.

I can't agree with your findings.
How can dropping a bomb that will indiscriminately kill hundreds or even thousands constitute "no violence"?

I don't think that is what John the Baptist had in mind when he spoke to the soldiers, but sending in legions of Roman soldiers to destroy a city was probably pretty close to the equivalent of dropping a bomb on a city, at least in those days. I remember when God "bombed" some cities and that was certainly not violence as no one was violated.

I don't think the "soldiers" were Romans, as John's message was for the Jews.
As for Sodom, God did His own works...not men.

I think you're still not using the word "violence" in the same way that I am, at this point. Violence isn't the use of force. It is the misuse of force to abuse others.

The KJV uses the word "harm" no man, not "violence".

Please keep in mind that as Israel had no army, per-se, while under occupation by Rome, that the "soldiers" were actually policemen.
Two or three policemen could easily round up a "perp" without violence in those days.

Again, when a police officer uses force, but does not misuse force, it isn't violence. They aren't violating anyone.

As long as he isn't "harming" anyone, I can agree.

Soldiering or policing are just not jobs for those loving their neighbor as themselves.
Leave the violence to those charged by God to do so.

I actually think they are. If we love our neighbor, we will want to ensure they are safe from wrongdoers. And, ways to love our neighbors include working in law enforcement or the military. Those that work in these fields are willing to lay down their lives to protect others. To me, that is a clear demonstration of love.
To me, those that oppose this idea do not actually love their neighbors, at all. They seem to love the wrongdoers more than their neighbors.

Do the COs love their neighbor, or are they doing evil?
John the Baptist, a prophet of God said "harm no man".
Obedience to that is not evil.

But, then, I do not subscribe to the idea that everyone is my neighbor, either. I think it is likely that you may.

I surely do consider all men my neighbor.
I'm puzzled as to why you don't?