Tag Archives: pacifism

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.

The Bible & War: The Divided Kingdom

Leave a reply

Where united Israel had been able to hold its own against the surrounding nations, the divided kingdom of Israel and Judah had little chance of survival. Even the kings that came to have some military success could only boast of reclaiming the territory which David had previously conquered.

While God often acted on behalf of his people, neither righteousness nor faithfulness related directly to military success. Some evil kings were successful warriors. Some good kings lived through very difficult times. It is true, however, that when a king truly sought God, God would bring deliverance (though, interestingly enough, that deliverance rarely involved Israelite or Jewish fighting forces).

The regional powers were Assyria and Egypt, with Babylonia waiting in the wings. Even under David, Israel had only been a power in its own neighborhood. Whereas God used foreign powers to punish Israel, He rarely used Israel and Judah in the same way. God’s prophets could denounce foreign powers, but God’s people were not sent as agents of punishment against them. Violent punishment was carried out, at times, against the unfaithful within the borders of the Promised Land.

This period is a bloody period, principally because of the unfaithfulness of God’s people. Because they were untrue to the Covenant, they lost the protection that Covenant promised and received the foretold punishment.

The time of the divided kingdom provides the historical context for the prophets, that we’ll look at later.

The Bible & War: The Psalms

2 Replies

I won’t try and look at all of wisdom literature. I think our most pertinent information comes from the book of Psalms. Many, if not most, of the psalms were written by David, so it’s appropriate to look at this material after having talked about David.

When reading wisdom literature in the Old Testament, we must never lose sight of its humanity. One of the functions of the poetic books of the Old Testament is to accurately reflect the thoughts and feelings of God’s people, even when those thoughts and feelings don’t reflect God’s views. The psalms can speak of abandonment by God, even when it’s not true. The psalms can speak of God being inattentive to their prayers, even when it’s not true. It is true that they felt abandoned and neglected.

I feel that some of the violent, vengeful psalms reflect the same style of writing. They show us the depth of pain that God’s people were feeling, but I don’t know that it was God who wanted to see Babylonian infants dashed against rocks (Psalm 137).

That being said, the psalms talk quite a bit about war:

  • God is a warrior God, even known to fight personally against His enemies (see Psalm 18:14, for example)
  • God prepares His people to fight (Psalm 144:1)
  • God protects His people in battle (Psalm 140:7)
  • In fact, all that matters in battle is that God be on your side (Psalm 33:16ff; Psalm 20:7)
  • God also puts an end to wars (Psalm 46:6ff; Psalm 76:3)
  • The people who delight in war are not God’s people

As you see, it’s a broad view. For the psalmists, theology is not at all separate from war.