One of the popular challenges to Christian nonviolence ethics is Jesus' interaction with the centurion who's slave He healed. The account is repeated here from the Gospel of Luke:

Luke 7:1-10

When He had completed all His discourse in the hearing of the people, He went to Capernaum. And a centurion's slave, who was highly regarded by him, was sick and about to die. When he heard about Jesus, he sent some Jewish elders asking Him to come and save the life of his slave. When they came to Jesus, they earnestly implored Him, saying, "He is worthy for You to grant this to him; for he loves our nation and it was he who built us our synagogue."

Now Jesus started on His way with them; and when He was not far from the house, the centurion sent friends, saying to Him, "Lord, do not trouble Yourself further, for I am not worthy for You to come under my roof; for this reason I did not even consider myself worthy to come to You, but just say the word, and my servant will be healed. For I also am a man placed under authority, with soldiers under me; and I say to this one, 'Go!' and he goes, and to another, 'Come!' and he comes, and to my slave, 'Do this!' and he does it."

Now when Jesus heard this, He marveled at him, and turned and said to the crowd that was following Him, "I say to you, not even in Israel have I found such great faith." When those who had been sent returned to the house, they found the slave in good health.

The arguement against pacifism from this passage works as follows: if being a soldier was so bad, why didn't Jesus tell the centurion to quit being a soldier?

Yet there is a different issue which this passage could be appealled to by using the same arguement: if slavery was so bad, why didn't Jesus tell the centurion to quit owning slaves?

Such a point may seem silly beyond the need to consider to modern sensibilities, but such arguements were exactly the kinds used to deffend slavery as little as a century ago. The New Testament is filled with references to Christian slaves and slavery which doesn't paint it in a particularily negative light (Philippians 4:22, Ephesians 6:5-9, Colossians 3:22-4:1). There is even a whole book of the New Testament, Paul's Epistle to Philemon, which is giving advice to a Christian slaveowner and the slave. Paul has advice only fulfilling the duty of slaves, permitting even Christians to have slaves and going on to say that to even debate the slavery issue is pointless quarrelling, as in this quote from the First Epistle to Timothy:

I Timothy 6:1-5

All who are under the yoke as slaves are to regard their own masters as worthy of all honor so that the name of God and our doctrine will not be spoken against. Those who have believers as their masters must not be disrespectful to them because they are brethren, but must serve them all the more, because those who partake of the benefit are believers and beloved. Teach and preach these principles.

If anyone advocates a different doctrine and does not agree with sound words, those of our Lord Jesus Christ, and with the doctrine conforming to godliness, he is conceited and understands nothing; but he has a morbid interest in controversial questions and disputes about words, out of which arise envy, strife, abusive language, evil suspicions, and constant friction between men of depraved mind and deprived of the truth, who suppose that godliness is a means of gain.

Another passage from the New Testament commonly used to defend violence is the famous "who's-who" of faithfulness in Hebrews 11:1-40. In it, the writer often mentions kings and soldiers as paragons of virtue, at it is assumed that there is an implicit approval by God for violence. After all how could these be great men of faith if they did things that were so terrible? It's not like Abraham (Hebrews 11:8-19) did anything so terrible as getting one of his own slaves pregnant and then casting her and their son out of his tribe. Or that Rahab (Hebrews 11:31) was a prostitute, or Samson a fraternizer with the enemy or mighty King David an adulterer and conspirator (Hebrews 11:32). And certainly David wouldn't have owned slaves. Right?

Of course one may argue that these people are held up as testimonies to faith in spite of these rather negative attributes. One may also point out that some of them are upheld exactly because of their militarism. As Hebrews 11:32-34 says: And what more shall I say? For time will fail me if I tell of Gideon, Barak, Samson, Jephthah, of David and Samuel and the prophets, who by faith conquered kingdoms, performed acts of righteousness, obtained promises, shut the mouths of lions, quenched the power of fire, escaped the edge of the sword, from weakness were made strong, became mighty in war, put foreign armies to flight.

Yet what exactly do we think happens when people conquer kingdoms, become mighty in war, and put foreign armies to flight? We know the costs of war in the oppression of other human beings. Enslaving one's enemies was standard practice in Biblical times, and a conquered kingdom is inherently enslaved. So yes, the writer of Hebrews is here applauding the act of conquest equally as much as he is applauding men of war.

This essay is not mean to be an abominable defense of slavery. I believe that there is an unfolding revelation amongst the people of God, inspired by the Holy Spirit, which allows us to open our eyes ever wider to the radicalness of Jesus' teachings. Though blinded by our social circumstances, we come to realize the full depth and ramifications of Jesus teachings of love, equality, and liberation. It is this that inspired Paul to write, even after laying down divisions between Jews and Greeks and slaves and masters and men and women, in Galatians 3:28: There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free man, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus.

What this is essay is meant to show is the shaky ground upon which the pro-violence arguement of the centurion's slave is based. Those who use it no doubt, I hope, reject slavery in all its abominable horror. Yet the message of non-violence from the New Testament is FAR STRONGER than the message of abolition. There ISN'T a message of abolition to speak of in the New Testament, yet we have specific instructions not to return violence for violence over and over and over again.

So what do we do? Naturally, we abolish slavery and take that as the given evil that it is, yet we excuse violence when specifically instructed not to engage in it. And one of the arguements we use is that of Jesus healing the centurion's slave, even though one could easily draw a pro-slavery arguement from it.

What I take from this passage in the Gospel of Luke is a message of God's incredible graciousness. The centurion being a centurion doesn't really factor into this whole situation. In fact, if the witness of the Jewish elders can be taken at face value, then as military leaders from a pagan government oppressing the Chosen People go, this one isn't all that bad. He sounds like he is far more sympathetic towards the Hebrew plight than one would expect. One might even go so far as to call him a sympathizer.

What is a factor here is the centurion's faith in Jesus as the Messenger from God. Drawing the only comparisons which his military-bred mind can draw, the centurion expresses his simple faith that whatever Jesus may be, He can heal His slave. Amazed by this simple, almost child-like faith, Jesus heals the slave, mentioning neither militarism nor slavery.

Ultimately, the whole situation is less about the centurion than it is a lesson for us. This is the extravagance of God's grace: that even a slave-owning soldier from an oppressive and occupying military superpower can know God's grace. This passage still holds an important meaning for advocates of nonviolence, though it is not the great proof for violence that some use it for. Instead it is a message that God's love and grace is extravagant and big enough for all people, even those we oppose. How easy would it have been for Jesus and the Hebrews to tell the centurion to shove off because he's their oppressor. Yet they did not... God's grace is for all people, even our enemies.

But how can we finally confirm that this was His intent and not actually a standard ambivilance towards solidery? Prior to this event, John the Baptist actually does interact with soldiers who come to him asking specifically what they should do. John's response is related in Luke 3:14: And the soldiers likewise demanded of him, saying, And what shall we do? And he said unto them, "Do violence to no man, neither accuse any falsely; and be content with your wages." If we can presume enough to suggest that John's and Jesus' teachings were in coherence, then it stands that yes, Jesus did not intend soldiers to continue on in soldiery.