Category Archives: peace

The Sword-Bearing Prince of Peace

4 Replies

Since I’ve discussed Romans 13 at length in the past, I don’t really see the need to go back over that passage. So let’s turn our attention to the Book of Revelation. When seeking to refute pacifistic ideas, many look to Revelation 19. There we see Jesus in a robe dipped in blood, killing His enemies with a sword.

The word “dipped” can throw us off here, for, in Revelation, the martyrs have previously washed their robes in blood, but it wasn’t the blood of their enemies. It was the blood of the Lamb, the blood that won the victory over Satan. However, in Chapter 19, Jesus is “trampling the grapes of wrath.” In Chapter 14, when these grapes were harvested, it was said that the blood flowed as deep as the horses’ bridles. Whose blood? Probably a reference to God’s enemies, though that’s never made clear.

But no matter where the blood on His robe came from, Jesus’ intentions are clear. He is there to “strike down the nations.” This is a time for vengeance.

So there we have it. Christians are called to exact vengeance on God’s enemies. Or are they?

Let’s back up. Revelation is written to a group of Christians who are about to undergo persecution. The message to them is that they are to patiently endure, overcoming by being faithful witnesses. There’s a reason why the Greek word for “witness” became the English word “martyr,” for Jesus is held up as the example of what a faithful witness is. The mighty Lion of Judah turns out to be a lamb that was slain. He conquered on the cross, by dying for His faith. Now He calls His followers to be unafraid to risk the same.

The promise is that God will exact vengeance on their tormenters. Just as Second Thessalonians promises that those who persecute the Christians will be punished by God, so Revelation emphasizes that Christians are not to seek to bring about “justice” by their own hand, but they are to leave vengeance to God.

(By the way, did you notice what sword Jesus is using to strike down the nations? The sword which proceeds from His mouth. It doesn’t take much knowledge of apocalyptic symbolism to see that the judgment against the nations will be exacted by the Word of God. The scene is that of ultimate judgment, the final defeat of evil. The weapons are spiritual ones, just as the armies are heavenly armies and not earthly ones.)

So how did early Christians read Revelation? Did they see in it a call to arms, a summons to exact justice on the Romans via the sword? No. They saw it as a reminder that they were to submit to the authorities, honor the king, and leave vengeance to God. To get Revelation to say something else, you have to strip it from its original context.

(Do I really have to address the numbers question? Probably, because it always seems to come up. “Christians didn’t fight back because there weren’t enough of them. Had they had a chance of winning, God would have told them to fight.” Should you be clinging to that idea, might I suggest a quick perusal of the Old Testament? Stories like Gideon, Samson, David vs. Goliath, Jonathan and his armor bearer vs. the whole Philistine army… God doesn’t need numbers to win a battle. If violent resistance had been the answer, God was more than capable of enabling His people to triumph.)

I’d like to hear your thoughts, comments, questions and suggestions.

Onward Christian soldiers?

11 Replies

So what do we do with the positive examples of soldiers in the New Testament? Doesn’t the existence of men like Cornelius mean that soldiering is not inherently sinful? To the dismay of hardline pacifists everywhere, I’d say yes. It does show that soldiers can be pleasing to God.

Just to try and anger everyone, let me point out that the text doesn’t tell us whether Christians becoming soldiers is pleasing to God. Since we don’t see that in the New Testament, we can’t argue either way from these examples. Did these men continue soldiering after becoming Christian? Did they limit their participation in any way? Those questions go unanswered.

But I find the soldiers in Luke 3 fascinating. Who are these guys? It’s extremely unlikely that these were Jews who had joined the Roman army. They might be Romans who had become Jews, though it’s more likely they were god-fearers at best. Still, it’s an incredible sight to see these representatives of Rome coming to a crazy Jewish prophet for spiritual guidance.

And the guidance John gives reminds us that, at that moment any way, these soldiers were performing police duties, rather than fighting on the front lines. But he doesn’t say “Resign,” nor does he rebuke them for their position.

The centurion with great faith (Matthew 8) is another important character. He gets nothing but praise from Jesus. No “Go and sin no more.” No “Sell all your weapons and give the money to the poor.” Nothing but “Go! It will be done just as you believed it would.”

Cornelius was a man pleasing to God. His example upsets the theology of many, especially with the text’s emphasis on the role of Cornelius’ good works in his being chosen by God. Good works done while serving as a Roman officer.

Some thoughts on these examples:

  1. Like it or not, in each instance we see men who are serving in a role that today would be a police force. I know that doesn’t set well with those who want to argue that Christians can never bear arms nor with those who want to use these men to argue for Christians serving in the military.
  2. Contrary to what you may have heard, however, the early church was not completely pacifistic. In reviewing a book called Defending Constantine, Ben Witherington refutes that idea rather thoroughly:
    • Both Tertulian and Eusebius relate a story of Christians in Marcus Aurelius’ army who prayed for water for the troops
    • Historians can point to solid evidence that there were Christians in the armies in North Africa and the eastern and western fronts
    • When Constantine had his vision of the cross, he sought out Christians among his troops to help him interpret the sign
  3. As I’ve written about before, Hippolytus gives us insight into how some Christians dealt with military service: soldiers who were converted didn’t have to quit, but they were limited in what they could rightfully do. And Christians were not allowed to join.

While the examples of soldiers in the New Testament doesn’t settle any issues, it does remind us that pacifists need to be careful not to overstate their case.

If you don’t have a sword…

5 Replies

OK, let’s start looking at some of the passages we brought up from the New Testament. One of the most popular passages given to support Christians bearing arms is Luke 22:36-38—

“He said to them, “But now let the one who has a moneybag take it, and likewise a knapsack. And let the one who has no sword sell his cloak and buy one. For I tell you that this Scripture must be fulfilled in me: ‘And he was numbered with the transgressors.’ For what is written about me has its fulfillment.” And they said, “Look, Lord, here are two swords.” And he said to them, “It is enough.”” (Luke 22:36-38)

If we apply the famous hermeneutic of “The Bible says it, I believe it, that settles it,” then the matter seems to be settled. But, alas, it doesn’t seem to be that simple.

Ben Witherington has offered a short analysis of verse 38, arguing that Jesus is rejecting the idea of sword carrying. But the passage is ambivalent enough that I think we should give it a deeper look. Linguistically, Jesus could be arguing for or against swords; what else can we find here?

In this context, what would the swords be used for? The passage Jesus quotes in verse 37 relates the instructions here to his impending arrest. Is Jesus anticipating a rise in the number of wild animals or an increase in crime following his betrayal? That seems absurd. Persecution by the Roman government? That would come eventually, but it was still decades away. No, the increased danger which Jesus was foreshadowing would come from the Jews, and it would be religiously motivated.

I’ve heard Christians argue that the teachings about loving enemies and turning the other cheek only applies to those who would persecute us. If so, this passage would seem to contradict that teaching. If Jesus is literally telling his disciples to procure weapons, it is to defend themselves against the Jews.

I would also argue that if that was Jesus’ meaning, his teachings were completely ignored. We read multiple times of the Jews persecuting Christians in the Book of Acts, and the Christians seemed to use two means of defense: prayer and flight. Fighting isn’t in there.

Patrick Mead admits to using Acts 23 in arguments against what he calls “neo-pacifists.” If Paul didn’t believe in swords being used for protection, why did he tell his nephew to inform the Romans about the plot to kill him? But that’s missing the bigger point: why didn’t Paul tell his nephew to go tell the church?

How many Christians were there in Jerusalem at that time? A conservative figure would be 10,000. Those who take Jesus literally in Luke 22 argue that Jesus approves of the ratio of one weapon for every six believers. So there should have been at least 1600 armed Christians, having purchased swords for the express purpose of protecting believers from the Jews. This was their moment! Now was the time. They knew who, they know what, they knew when. Send out those Christian special forces to do the very thing that Jesus commanded: use swords against the Jews.

So why did Paul have to tell the Romans? Surely it’s obvious. Living in a militarized society, twenty centuries after the fact, we can read Luke 22 and imagine that Jesus wanted Christians to be armed. But those living in the decades following his death understood the exact opposite. Jesus is not telling his disciples to arm themselves. He’s pointing to the impending violence which will soon lash out at the church.

That’s my theory. Feel free to punch holes in it.

The Bible & War: A Pacifist New Testament Reading

7 Replies

Yesterday we surveyed the New Testament with non-pacifist eyes. Today we’ll put our other lenses on.

What are some of the passages typically used by pacifists? Here are a few that come to mind:

  • The Sermon on the Mount. If Romans 13 is the trump card for their opponents, the Sermon on the Mount is the Ace of Spades for pacifists. Sayings like “Do not resist an evil man,” “Turn the other cheek,” and “Love your enemy” seem to support the pacifistic view.
  • Luke 22:38. Where many non-pacifists find encouragement in Jesus’ mention of buying swords in Luke 22, pacifists point to his sharp response when the disciples produce two swords. Pacifists take “That is enough” as a rebuke of the disciples’ misunderstanding of Jesus’ words.
  • Jesus’ rebuke of Peter in Gethsemane. When Peter drew a sword to defend Jesus, Jesus sharply rebuked him. Matthew records this:

    “Put your sword back in its place,” Jesus said to him, “for all who draw the sword will die by the sword.” (Matthew 26:52)

  • Jesus’ reply to Pilate about His kingdom:

    “My kingdom is not of this world. If it were, my servants would fight to prevent my arrest by the Jews. But now my kingdom is from another place.” (John 18:36)

    Pacifists argue that Jesus’ kingdom is still other worldly, so fighting is inappropriate.

  • Paul’s teachings in Romans 12:14-21 about avoiding vengeance, not repaying evil with evil, and living at peace.
  • The Book of Revelation. The message of Revelation, directed to an oppressed church, was one of submission and patience, not uprising and rebellion. The wicked would be punished, but not at the hands of the righteous.

Those are the primary passages that come to mind. Lots of reasoning can be done apart from these passages, both in favor of and against pacifism, but I think these are the texts that are normally referenced.

I plan to do some analysis of all of this beginning next week. For now, I want to feel that we’ve done a proper survey. So please point out any texts that have been missed along the way.

The Bible & War: A Non-Pacifist New Testament Reading

8 Replies

Having done a quick survey of the Old Testament, we move to the New Testament. I’d like to say that things really come into focus, but we only have to read a bit among Christian writers to realize that isn’t so.
As best I can, let me present the passages used by the pro-involvement side (choosing my terms carefully). As I move farther away from this view, it’s harder for me to objectively present these arguments, so I encourage others to comment and help us keep balance.

  • In Luke 3:14, when soldiers come to John the Baptist asking what they should do to show their repentance, John tells them to not extort and to be content with their wages. Not only are they not told to leave the military, they are not given any instructions about limiting their participation.
  • Several soldiers are presented in a favorable light, such as the Roman centurion who showed great faith in Jesus (Matthew 8), Cornelius (Acts 10) and numerous Roman officers in the book of Acts.
  • In Acts, when a group of Jews sought to kill Paul, Paul sought protection from the Roman military.
  • Paul compared Christian life to military life. (passages like Ephesians 6:10ff and 2 Timothy 2:3-4)
  • Jesus said that He had not come to bring peace but a sword. (Matthew 10:34)
  • Jesus told His followers that they would need swords in the future. (Luke 22:36)
  • Though many think of Jesus as the Prince of Peace, He is also portrayed as one who will punish God’s enemies. (passages like 2 Thessalonians 1:5-10 and Revelation 19)
  • Jesus strikes down the nations with a sword in Revelation.

Are there other New Testament passages that should be presented when making a case for Christians participating in the military?

Edit [9:20 a.m., 5/11/11]: I left out the text of texts, the trump card of trump cards—Romans 13. Apologies. Christians must submit to the government which bears the sword and has been charged with punishing evildoers. That is a very important text.