Does the Bible abet violence and forced conversions of people to Christianity against their will?, why then did the Colonials do so and even violently kill tribespeople in the Americas?

         This is a blog entry that I wished to write on this topic for a long time. Too many proponents of the Hindutuva ideology in India (and also Muslims around the world in response to Christians making the well-founded statement that Islam spread by the sword historically) not only believe but spread lies about Christianity being inherently violent and they usually point to events like the Portuguese conversion of Hindus in Goa to Catholicism for instance or the destruction of native American tribes at the hands of the White people (Spaniards, French, Dutch and English) who settled in those countries. My objective here is not to deny that these violent events happened, rather to point out that violence was neither abetted by Christ in the Gospels nor did Jesus' first disciples and apostles resort to the use of weapons and organised use of fear to spread Christianity the same way Islam's first followers did for instance. 

i) The Beginnings - Jesus and the apostles:

      To know about a belief-system or a faith, we should first go back to its Scriptures and the Bible and in particular, the New Testament's 4 canonical Gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John which were all written and completed within the 1 century AD. The first of the Gospels to be written was the Gospel of Mark and the last was John, nonetheless the Gospel of John was completed within a maximum of 60 years after Jesus' resurrection. These Gospels were widely accepted as canonical because they were written very close to the events in Jesus' life and his apostles both in time and space. With regard to space, we see that these Gospels written by the Jewish apostles of Jesus who walked, talked, ate, slept alongside Jesus, so the 4 Gospels were written directly by those who interacted and knew Jesus personally and some were written by people who were in touch with Jesus' apostles personally as well as other people Jesus interacted with. The style of writing of the 4 synoptic Gospels was "Greco-Roman Biography" which implies people jotting down events and things which the said or key person does as and when those events occur or within a short span of time after the events, hence that means that they could always ask the person or even talk to those who were healed, delivered or experienced miracles at the hands of Jesus when they came to Him. In the Gospels, we find 3 instances that critics of the Gospel mostly allude to in a bid to say that Jesus did talk about violence and we will both discuss those passages here and how Christians have historically seen those passages. These are the only 3 instances in the synoptic Gospels where we see any allusion to weapons or violence which critics disingenuously use to say that Jesus abetted violence against people when He clearly never did - 

a) Luke 22:36:

 "36 Then said he unto them, But now, he that hath a purse, let him take it, and likewise his scrip: and he that hath no sword, let him sell his garment, and buy one".

   While these are indeed Jesus' words, we need to understand and read them in context to get a clear picture of why Jesus is saying what he is saying here. We need to understand that Jesus' time to be crucified was fast approaching and Judas was about to betray him to the Pharisees and Sadducees who finally got the approval and soldiers from the Roman prefect to come and arrest Jesus. Jesus knew fully well what was in the minds of his apostles because he told them that they never lacked anything earlier when they followed him in verse 35 after which he told them to buy a few swords. The apostles were fearful of what would happen to them, if Jesus were crucified because if the head of the group is caught and crucified, the followers will eventually face the same situation and they leaned on their own understanding seeking to get swords to defend themselves and Jesus wanted to teach his disciples 1 final lesson.

   This becomes even more obvious in verse 38 of chapter 22 of Luke where when one of His apostles says "here are 2 swords Lord", Jesus said "That is enough". Later in verse 46 in the garden of Gethsemane when Jesus prayed, he told them to join him in prayer instead of sleeping, lest they be tempted to act wrongly. We may ask, what temptation were they about to face in the light of Jesus' arrest and handing over to the Jewish religious leaders who were against Jesus. The answer becomes clearer when the apostles of Jesus scatter after Jesus' arrest in Jerusalem for fear of being arrested, tried and condemned to death themselves, 1 of them Peter used 1 of the 2 swords to strike off the chief priest's servant's ear and Jesus healed the man while telling Peter to put the sword back in the sheath saying "He who liveth by the sword shall die by the sword" in Matthew 26:52. Hence we see the "sell what you have and get yourselves swords" verse is a set up to what Jesus taught his disciples about violence not being the answer with the words "He who lives by the sword shall die by the sword", hence Jesus is basically discouraging his disciples from resorting to violence in the 1st place. 

   Another couple of verses that show why Jesus never told his disciples to use swords to subjugate lands, nations and kingdoms at the edge of the sword if they do not accept Him as their Lord and Saviour the way Muhammad spread his religion, are as follows. When Jesus was questioned by the Roman prefect of Judea Pontius Pilate who was ruling over Judea at the time. Jesus said in John 18:36 "My kingdom is NOT of this world: if my kingdom were of this world, then would my servants fight, that I should not be delivered to the Jews: but now is my kingdom not from hence. This verse proves that the church that follows Jesus which is his true bride is not a worldly power and is not concerned with ruling over this world politically, this implies clear-cut separation from church and state and to this end, all Western countries have this separation whereby the church does not interfere with the affairs of the state related to rulership over Christian lands. Therefore, when we read Luke 22:36 in the light of Mathew 26:52, we see it as a part of a warning by Jesus Christ on how not to live our lives as Christians - by the sword.

b) Luke 19:27: 

27 But those mine enemies, which would not that I should reign over them, bring hither, and slay them before me.

              This is yet another favourite verse of critics of Christianity which they take out of context to make a moot point about Jesus abetting violence in Christianity. However, when we read the above verse in context of its preceding verses, we see that this verse is a part of one of Jesus' parables called "Parable of the ten minas" and historically has always been understood by Christians to be a part of a parable which is basically a story with a meaning that only Jesus' apostles could understand and not Jesus' enemies like the Pharisees. The moral of the story is when God gives gifts or talents to a person, He naturally expects the person to multiply them for God's glory either through work or through self-improvement with God's grace and help. If this parable were to be interpreted as a call to violence against non-Christians, Jesus' first disciples and apostles would have resorted to violent conquest and they would have sought to harm those who did not believe in Jesus as Christians did which is not the case historically because Jesus' first disciples and apostles who knew Jesus, walked, talked and spent time with Him never preached the Gospel at the edge of the sword. On the contrary, they were subjected to much hardship, pain and sorrow for the message that they carried and preached far and wide and many of them died preaching the Gospel peacefully but were hated by their listeners who did not want to hear the message because it challenged their religious beliefs and convictions by pointing to Jesus as the only way to heaven and eternal life.

c) Matthew 10:34:

34 Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword.

       The above verse is yet another favourite of Christianity's critics aiming to cast a slur on Jesus' teachings as if Jesus favoured the idea of violent conquest for his message over peaceful preaching. Nonetheless, the context of the verse becomes clearer as people read its preceding verses and the ones below it in the same chapter where it becomes obvious that Jesus is talking about a situation wherein a person who accepts Jesus as his/her Lord and personal Saviour would have to face familial issues like being disowned by his/her parents and we see the same situation in many countries from Islamic lands where Muslim men and women who leave Islam for Christianity are sidelined and rejected, even face persecution and death at the hands of members of their own families as well as in South East Asian countries where various groups do not take kindly to the thought of a family member choosing to follow Christ over their family's religious systems. The above verse clearly shows that a sword separates those who love Jesus enough to choose to follow Him for life and those of their families who start seeing them as enemies and betrayers of their family's identity because of leaving their ancestral faiths. Incidentally, this is how Matthew 10:34 has been historically understood by all groups of Christians across the world unanimously regardless of their denominations.

  Thus we can see that during the 1st century AD when the apostles of Jesus Christ in obedience to Jesus' calling on their lives under the guidance of the Holy Spirit travelled far and wide to preach the Gospel message across the world, never resorted to violence not just in the Bible but in every other Greco-Roman historical writings too even by Greek and Roman historians who hated Christianity and Christians but these were unanimous to agree that Christians never resorted to harm or violence of other groups to spread their message but instead were victims of widespread persecution at the hands of those whom they preached to who saw Christianity's exclusive message of Salvation in Christ alone as a threat to the existing religious institutions in lands to which the apostles travelled, built churches and established Christian congregations. In fact, Christian persecution during these 1st few centuries was so harsh at the hands of Roman emperors that Greco-Roman historians record Christians being killed en masse at places like the Colosseum in Rome by being burnt at stakes (Vivicomburarium), crucifixion (Crucifixio) or being thrown to wild beasts that tore them to death (Damnatio ad bestias) which were the 3 greatest forms (Summa supplicia) of Roman punishment for the worst of crimes which were infamously imposed on Christians for following Christ instead of the Greco-Roman pantheon of gods and goddesses which the pagan Roman emperors wrongly saw as a threat to their culture and empire.I would like to particularly draw your attention to the fact that violence was a part and parcel of Roman culture before Christianity came to Rome and Greece because this violence is not from Jesus' teachings in the Bible but from Rome's war-like ways even before Rome became Christian.

ii) Edict of Milan (AD 313) - the turning point:

     Once pagan Rome became Christian under Constantine who became a Christian under the influence of his Christian mother Helena, Christians were safe from the persecution of the pagan Romans and Constantine, while largely peaceful and with the persecution of Christians outlawed which meant that Christians finally got respite from all the persecution which is the silver lining in the cloud. Constantine's Roman successors who were also Christians were now following a syncretic religion of Roman paganism and Christianity called Catholicism which was instated by Constantine himself while proponents of Catholicism point to the start of Catholicism being as far ahead as Jesus saying to Peter "Thou art Peter and upon this rock I will build my church (Matthew 16:18)" which is why Catholics refer to Peter as the 1st pope in a long line of popes or bishops of Rome who are both religious heads of the catholic faith but also political leaders which is why even current popes are seen with world leaders and often involve themselves with politics instead of just focussing on matters of faith. The pope's Latin title sums up this idea of church power (religious power) and state power (temporal power)  becoming one in the authority of the pope - "Pontifex maximus". "Pontifex" means "Bridge builder" and "Maximus" means "Highest", not so surprisingly, even pagan Roman emperors before Constantine also had this dual role and held the title "Pontifex Maximus" because they held both temporal (political rule) and religious power. However, we see Jesus explaining to Peter that Jesus' kingdom is not of his world but is a heavenly one which is why Jesus never encouraged his followers to take up weapons and fight. With Roman Catholicism began the separation of the church from its Jewish roots because Christianity originally started as a movement of Judaism and Constantine rebranded Roman Jew hatred of old by labelling all Jews as "Christ killers" which also explains centuries of RC doctrine against Jewish people leading to many pogroms in Europe and the false doctrine of "Supercessionism" which the RC church, Orthodox church and some earlier Protestant denominations like some branches of Lutheranism adopted. "Supercessionism" or as we Evangelicals like to call it "Replacement Theology" claims that Jews are no longer heirs of God's kingdom and cannot inherit Salvation because of their role in Jesus' crucifixion and their rejection of the Christian message and as such, Jews are replaced by non-Jew Christians who are the new heirs of God's kingdom (which flies in the face of the Bible and Jesus' own Jewish identity along with those of his family, his disciples, the prophets of the Bible and so on).

         The doctrine of Replacement Theology is false as it contradicts the fact that Jesus, His family and the 12 disciples of Jesus and later Paul who wrote most of the New Testament were Jews to begin with who were all inspired of God to write those books including the 4-canonical Gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John and there are Jews in our day and age called Messianic Jews who believe in Jesus as their Lord and personal Saviour and are saved just as non-Jewish Christians. In fact,  Paul writes in Romans 10 that non-Jewish Christians have been grafted into the natural olive tree which is the state and children of Israel - the Jews through Jesus Christ (Yeshua Ha'mashiach), that God has not given up on the Jews and also that non-Jewish Christians should not boast against the Jews because we got the Gospel message from the Jews. Then Paul writes that God allowed the rejection of the Gospel message by the Jews initially to become life to the non-Jewish Christians, then how much more shall the Jews' acceptance of the Gospel message be except life from the dead?. In either case, we see that violence became a part of the syncretic worldview created by Constantine by combining Jewish Christianity with war-like Pagan Romanism not because of Jesus' teachings in the Bible but because of Constantine own actions that did more harm than good from then onwards. It must be noted that once violence became a means by which the RC church asserted its authority through the Middle ages in Europe that other denominations of Christianity which were seen heretical because of their lack of affinity and submission to papal authority were also persecuted. The Spanish and Portuguese Inquisition as well as events like St. Bartholomew's day massacre against the French Huguenot Protestants by the RC church which influenced the French monarchy are events that prove that it was not the Bible or what Jesus taught in the Bible that were to blame for persecution and forced conversions of people of other faiths to Roman Catholicism but the Church of Rome itself which inherited its war-like ways from the Roman empire and mixed these with Christianity to wield violence as a means of achieving its goals. Jews were persecuted in Spain and Portugal under the Inquisition but also Hindus in Goa who were also forced to become Catholics when the catholic Portuguese arrived in India.

iii) What about violence and the Protestants?

      While some point to certain events in history and attribute it to Protestant countries and leaders. It must be understood that these early Protestant leaders came from Roman catholic background, hence held views based on Old Testament passages that were wrongly misinterpreted to mean that they were expected to follow those time-bound OT verses meant specifically for the Jews for all time while such OT passages were meant for the Jews and within the historical context of the Holy Land Israel. Even today, we do not see Jews or Christians especially Protestants using such passages to justify violence against other groups in times of war like in the case of Islam. However, the vast majority of violence in the name of Christianity was done by Roman Catholicism in sheer volume and continuity of violence throughout history till modern times.

         Hence this violence was not scripturally inspired since Christ never taught violence in the New Testament but it was what came from a feudal mindset originating from a pre-medieval Roman war-like way for which some used OT scriptural passages for justification rather than being inspired solely and fundamentally by Scripture especially by Christ's teachings in the 4 canonical Gospels which sum up what it means to be a Christian and live the Christian life rather than banking heavily on Old Testament passages regarding how Jews were to interact with their opponents in times of war between the Israelites and their pagan neighbours from the first 5-books of the Old Testament - the Torah which were given by God to the Jews within that specific historic and geographic framework except for moral parts like the 10 commandments showing what is sinful and just before God for all time.

      As we turn the clock further backwards towards Christ, we see as given in my paragraphs about the early church that the early church was persecuted by pagans rather than engage in warfare and persecution of pagan groups and this aligns perfectly with what Christ taught in the 4 Gospels and how the early Christians who were a mix of Jews and non-Jews followed Christ's teachings and hence were persecuted and harmed by their enemies rather than retaliate or be proactive in military action against persecuting groups for the 1st 3 centuries of Christianity which further proves and corroborates with the fact that violence in Christianity is not scripturally-inspired and that is how the earliest Christians, Jesus apostles as well as their followers who heard their preaching lived out their lives. 

Conclusion: 
                    In modern times as well as in the first 3 centuries of Christianity's inception, we see that Christianity with its Jewish roots contributed to Western thought and values like liberty, democracy and free thinking and expression, hence led to widespread development in so many areas where the West is far ahead of many other countries like industrialisation, science, technology and many other fields. The earliest Western scientists that modern atheist scientists depend on are the ones who contributed more to science and the overall development of Western society and thinking, were all Christians. While violence was present particularly in the Catholic church and to a lesser extent among Early Protestants who had just come out of Catholicism with doctrines that were very close to those in the RC church, violence was mostly because of feudal ways inspired by Roman-style violence, colonial objectives by European imperialists and owing to misunderstanding and abuse of scripture to further their own country's colonial goals. In short, neither Jesus in the 4 canonical Gospels (Matthew, Mark, Luke, John) nor his disciples and their followers engaged in any violence in the 1st 3 centuries during which they were subjected to persecution and harm by Greco-Roman pagans who hated Christianity.

    This is in sharp contrast to how Islam spread since its inception whose founder Muhammad is famously thought to have waged nearly 80+ wars and raids during his lifetime and abetted his followers to follow his example in spreading his religion violently whose followers followed his war-like ways of spreading Islam. While Jesus makes it a point for his followers to preach and share the message with all they meet in their lives, Jesus never encourages any forced conversion to Christianity in the 4 Gospels as this goes against Christianity's foundational teaching of God being benevolent and loving. Part of being loving is to accept people's choices in life to accept or reject, to follow or to ignore but not without consequences in the hereafter but these consequences are based on the choice of the listener who says "yes" or "no" to Christ and Christ accepting that choice fully including its final outcome. An analogy of this would be a man sinking in quicksand who can reach out to a hand that seeks to pull him out and save him or brush it aside of his own free volition, the one who rejects Christ is like the man/woman who brushes the Saviour's hand aside thinking that he/she can find his/her own way out of the quicksand and God honours that person's choice including the consequence of that person sinking to his/her own demise because of his love for that person which accepts the person's choice and free will to say "no" to him, even if it is to his/her own doom because true love never forces although it never seeks the other person's harm or destruction, hence the Christian God never sends non-Believers to Hell because of Himself but they go there because of their personal choice because the Bible makes it clear that there is no salvation outside Jesus whose Hebrew name "Yeshua (יֵשׁוּעַ)" literally means "Salvation". Hence, we see that violence is neither abetted by Christ in his New Testament teachings to his followers and apostles, nor was it followed by the earliest Christians who were persecuted and killed for their beliefs, hence Biblical Christianity as taught by Christ is not violent, the proof is the West in our day and age which is far ahead of other countries to which many people wish to flock and settle down in our day and age including those who criticise Christianity.