1. An excellent defense of the pre-modern notion of just war, and just violence. Again, it is a cogent and defensible position, one I find unsatisfactory in the end because it does not adequately account for the justifiably pacifist nature of the gospel.
2. There is a strong theme in both the prophetic texts as well as in the writings of Jesus and in the action of giving himself to the cross, that “In Christ” the goal is overcome violence through sacrifice and love.
3. The goal is not to integrate violence in redemptive reality as a “good” but rather to see it as an evil that will one day pass away when the redemptive work of Christ is fully revealed.
4. The degree that we engage in violence today is a marker of the degree to which grace remains veiled by sinful reality. To operate in the realm grace is to leave violence behind.
5. But in this interim period, the fullness of that grace is seen in but a mirror dimly. Thus it falls to the crown to mete out the necessary violence to maintain order within society. It falls to the crown to defend the people.
6. Ultimately the crown will be answerable to God for his violence, while necessary is always a sin. In the east it was common for Byzantine emperors who returned from war to do a period of penance for their sins.
7. While the just war tradition is cogent and defensible from a biblical perspective, in the end, I find this approach more satisfying, feeling it does a better job of integrating the two threads found in the scriptures.
8. Here is my look at Ellul’s book on violence and the Christian faith: apokekrummenain.substack.com
Loading suggestions...