Can a Christian be a Pacifist?

[steve7150]

The whole matter of Christians carrying out the words of our Lord, "Resist not evil", "Love your enemies", "Bless those who curse you; pray for those who abuse you". etc. VERSUS defending those who are in danger of death from an aggressor by violence or even killing him if necessary, has been the most difficult of all questions for me during the last 50 years.








In the Boston massacre i wonder if any of the Police were Christians and i wonder if any of the folks killed or in danger of being killed were their neighbors because we are called to love our neighbors as well as love our enemies.
Yes this is a rare scenario but it can happen and the decision made by the Christian law enforcement person may be a life and death decision. Sometimes a time may come when it may not be possible to love your neighbor and love your enemy simultaneously.

[Michelle]

Hi All,

I'm with Steve7150 and Paidion in seeing this question -- Can a Christian be a Pacifist? -- as one of the most troubling. Part of my problem is that I, like Homer, was raised in a pacifist household (my mother's family were Brethren; my Grandfather was in CPS during WW2), therefore I want to answer simplistically with "Yes, certainly." But I realize that jriccritelli's question really is "Should a Christian be a Pacifist?" and I can't come to a solid conclusion. Surely a Christian shouldn't be blood-thirsty, as the opponents to pacifism come off as at times, neither should we be apathetic, as pacifists are portrayed by their detractors. But, just where is the sweet-spot in the middle of that spectrum? I don't know. It keeps moving for me.

I would like to hear how the non-pacifist deals with that passage.
Steve G. asked about the passage in Luke 22, and although I'm not who Steve asked, I would like to add my two cents to the discussion (and am looking forward to [gentle] correction.) I'd love to have push back from jriccitelli, if it's thoughtful and irenic.

In particular, it would be good to know the following:

1. What is the purpose of buying a sword?

Could it have been to provoke arrest?

jriccitelli says they are for defense, but, really ... two swords against a great crowd bearing swords and clubs? Even if the modern equivalent is two pistols, would you think that was sufficient for self-defense against a crowd that included armed law enforcement agents and a mob stirred up by angry religious leaders? I think it would be suicidal to enter that fray thinking I had all the protection I needed. But with a pistol, there is the possibility of getting off a shot or two before you are hit with the return volley. A swordsman would be easier to overtake by a greater number of opponents, wouldn't he? I dunno, self-defense seems like a shaky supposition to me.

dwilikens referenced Mark 15:28 (in the versions where it appears) as the fulfillment of the prophecy Jesus referenced, and said that somewhere in the narrative this played out. Could it have been Jesus's arrest? Why would they needed moneybags and knapsacks as well? They didn't leave town, so why the travel provisions? Perhaps, though, ladened with money and knapsacks and swords, they gave the appearance of insurrectionists which would escalate the situation and guarantee arrest and conviction? Maybe?

2. What is meant by a "sword"?

Apparently what the disciples already had two of. The disciples had swords?!? Why has this question never formed in my mind over the years and years of Good Friday / Easter observances?

3. How do these instructions (v.36) follow logically upon the answer they gave to His first question (v.35)?

JR and DW seems to be saying that Jesus is telling the disciples that the good times are over. That might be the best answer. The thing of it is that Jesus didn't ask if the disciples were well-liked or were left alone by highwaymen; he asked if they lacked anything, which, to me, points to God's provision. Later, when Peter did use a sword in self-defense, Jesus told him that he could call twelve legions of angels for protection if he wanted, so maybe Jesus was warning them that He wouldn't be providing physical protection any more. And, yet, it seems that all the disciples had to do is turn and run and they were safe (along with Jesus pleading for them to be let go.)

4. Why did Jesus speak as if it was necessary for every man to have one (v.36), and then back down when only two were produced (v.38)?

I don't know.

5. How does buying a sword help fulfill Isaiah 53, which Jesus quotes as His reason (v.37)?

I'm still thinking it brought things to a head and helped hasten Jesus's arrest. I could be wrong, though.

6. If Jesus wanted the disciples to defend themselves with swords, why did He rebuke Peter for doing so?

Yeah, why did he rebuke Peter? I'm of pacifist upbringing, plus I'm a woman (who was surprised to learn, just this month, that I expect men to protect me. I never knew this) so maybe I don't have the best perspective, but...both JR and DW state that Peter used the sword at the wrong time and place, and I, for the life of me, don't see how Peter could have known that. In fact, it seems to me that Peter picked the precise time that anyone would have picked to launch a defense, if that's what was required. After a moment of shock when it was revealed that Judas was the betrayer, and realizing that this was a desperate situation, how could this have been the wrong moment for a defensive move, if that's what Jesus meant for him to do?

7. If Jesus had the disciples' self-defense in mind, why did the early church never defend themselves in this way?

Okay, DW has a point; maybe they did defend themselves but we lost whatever records we have. How about the 12? They were arrested, attacked, and assassinated. Why didn't they fight back? Even if they failed, wouldn't their brave acts encourage us in our defense of others and ourselves?

[steve7150]

2. What is meant by a "sword"?

Apparently what the disciples already had two of. The disciples had swords?!? Why has this question never formed in my mind over the years and years of Good Friday / Easter observances?








Speaking of these two swords, why should they sell their garments to buy swords? If Jesus meant literal swords why only have two swords for twelve disciples? Maybe the language is more symbolic then we think and maybe sword is symbolic for the "Word of God" or the "truth" or the "gospel" and maybe "garment" means something showing on the outside which can impress men but will need to be exchanged for something on the inside.

[mattrose]

I think it makes a lot more sense to keep the wording fairly biblical

'Can a Christian be a peacemaker?' is an absurd question, for instance, because we are called specifically to be peacemakers.

The only reason 'Can a Christian be a pacifist' is even in question is b/c there is a distinction being made between a peacemaker and a pacifist.

In my experience, the term 'pacifist' tends to have a 'do nothing' connotation when it comes to responding to violent evil. 'Do nothing' is quite contrary to what Jesus had in mind in the passages in question. Christians are called to work for peace in such situations. We are not to respond to force with force, not because it doesn't work in the short term, but because it is not a long term (Kingdom) solution. Violence produces violence.

Can a Christian 'do nothing' in response to violent evil? Of course not!
Can a Christian 'use force' in response to violent evil? That's what we've been discussing
Can a Christian 'work for peace' in response to violent evil? They must

[Homer]

Some thoughts from John Peter Lange's commentary (my favorite):

Apparently what the disciples already had two of. The disciples had swords?!? Why has this question never formed in my mind over the years and years of Good Friday / Easter observances?

Lange:
"It is, however, known that the Galileans were wont to travel armed; perhaps Peter and another disciple had taken their swords with them in the journey toward the capital, in the presentiment of danger on this very evening. Certain it is that they have them at all events now lying ready...."

Why did Jesus speak as if it was necessary for every man to have one (v.36), and then back down when only two were produced (v.38)?

Jesus' response was "melancholy irony"; it was preposterous to think that two swords would be of any use against the forces coming upon Jesus.

Speaking of these two swords, why should they sell their garments to buy swords? If Jesus meant literal swords why only have two swords for twelve disciples? Maybe the language is more symbolic then we think and maybe sword is symbolic for the "Word of God" or the "truth" or the "gospel" and maybe "garment" means something showing on the outside which can impress men but will need to be exchanged for something on the inside.

Jesus told them they needed to take a purse, bag, and swords. if we spirtualize the sword, how would we be consistent if we didn't spiritualize the purse and bag (and shoes), and then what would they represent?

"The Lord would certainly have avoided the expression as to buying a sword for threatening danger, if He had willed that His disciples in no case should think of self-defense with outward weapons".

[steve]

Why should we think that buying swords was a warning that they would face danger? The context of the statement is God's provision versus their own provision. Everything Jesus mentioned, other than the "sword," was simply personal provisions—not preparations for conflict. If the word Jesus used actually meant a "knife," then it fits with the other provisions for travel that are mentioned. Knives are a very versatile tool, as any Boy Scout or woodsman could testify. What cause is there to assume that Jesus is talking about carrying weapons? Jesus makes no mention of resistance in His teachings, except to forbid it.

[dwilkins]

It would seem completely outside of the flow of the story for Jesus to tell the Disciples to change gears from not having two coats or a money bag to making sure to sell their extra coat to buy a Leatherman in anticipation of their next adventure. I just don't think that passes the smell test. Isaiah and Mark seem clear that Jesus being Jesus is predicted to be associated with criminals and his crucifixion between two of them fulfilled this. Because he was about to be arrested and his promise to provide protection to the Disciples was accomplished I don't see any other conclusion that can be drawn other than that the knives or swords were for their defense in some context. Scripture doesn't go into rules of engagement, but that much of the story seems obvious to me.

Doug

[john6809]

his promise to provide protection to the Disciples was accomplished

Jesus wasn't with them when He sent them out "as sheep among wolves" without swords, money, sacks etc. either. Yet, somehow they were protected. If His physical presence provided them with enough security that they had no need for swords, but He didn't accompany them on their journey when He sent them out, how was it that He sent them out without swords?

[dwilkins]

his promise to provide protection to the Disciples was accomplished

Jesus wasn't with them when He sent them out "as sheep among wolves" without swords, money, sacks etc. either. Yet, somehow they were protected. If His physical presence provided them with enough security that they had no need for swords, but He didn't accompany them on their journey when He sent them out, how was it that He sent them out without swords?

That's an interesting question, but I don't think we need to know how. He flatly declared that his promise to them that he'd lose not one of them was accomplished by keeping them physically safe until his arrest. We don't know how he did it (though I think it's fair to say he did it somehow providentially). But, he's the one saying to buy the swords going forward. He changed his advice to them on how to prepare (whether we understand it completely or not) and so it would seem that this preparation has to have a legitimate context.

Doug

[john6809]

He flatly declared that his promise to them that he'd lose not one of them was accomplished by keeping them physically safe until his arrest.

I don't see that Jesus claimed to "keep" His disciples safe physically but rather, spiritually. In His prayer of John 17, He clearly says that He has "kept" all except for Judas. Yet Judas was still alive, had not yet betrayed Him, and eventually took his own life. Further, in verse 15, Jesus prays, "I do not pray that You should take them out of the world, but that You should keep them from the evil one."

It seems to me that He was indicating that their physical "keeping" was not so important as being "kept" from the evil one. That Jesus places importance on the disciples' possession of swords seems obvious, since He tells them "...and he who has no sword, let him sell his garment and buy one." It sounds at first like He intends each one to have a sword. But then He seems to decide that two would be enough.