Jumpstarter 5 of 10

Ideas to help restart your discussion

Question 5

Luther later told Christians they were “under obligation to serve and further the sword,” calling it “a Christian act and an act of love to confidently kill, rob, and pillage the enemy”; how does that collide with Jesus’ teaching about loving enemies, and what does it expose about how easily “love” can be redefined to serve national loyalty?

Another way to ask: Later Luther called it loving and “Christian” to kill and plunder enemies to support the sword. How does that clash with Jesus’ command to love enemies, and how can “love” get reshaped to mean loyalty to a nation?

Direct Answer Bercot argues Luther’s claim directly collides with Jesus’ way (turning the other cheek, not resisting evil), because it labels wartime violence as “love.” It exposes how national loyalty can redefine “love” as harming enemies for the state rather than obeying Christ.

Support from Transcript:

Luther first teaches kingdom ethics, but later tells Christians: “serve and further the sword.”
He calls war violence “a Christian act and an act of love to confidently kill, rob, and pillage the enemy.”
Bercot responds, “What kind of absurdity is that? Is that what Jesus and His disciples did?”
He warns that kingdom citizens in different nations could end up killing “their fellow citizens of God’s kingdom.”
Bercot ties it to Jesus’ warning about masters: allegiance to an earthly ruler leads to “hating Jesus and what he stands for.”

Discussion Follow-ups When have Christians used moral words (“love,” “justice,” “mercy”) to bless what Jesus forbids? What loyalties most often reshape our definitions?

Jumpstarter 5 of 10