Pacifism

[robbyyoung]

2. I'm confused as to your references to Jesus' rebuke about timing. Is there something in Jesus rebuke that would make you think He would be OK with violence towards enemies at a different time? Jesus' actually heals the victim of Peter's violence! I consider Jesus' rebuke here within the context of the His earlier command:

Hi schoel,

Have you ever worked through the conversation Yeshua had with His Disciples before the lead-up to this event? Yeshua told Peter and the others to bring their swords! They didn't take up the sword by their own account, rather, they followed the words of their Master.

Luke 22:35-38 (NASB)
And He said to them, "When I sent you out without money belt and bag and sandals, you did not lack anything, did you?" They said, "No, nothing." And He said to them, "But now, whoever has a money belt is to take it along, likewise also a bag, and whoever has no sword is to sell his coat and buy one. "For I tell you that this which is written must be fulfilled in Me, 'AND HE WAS NUMBERED WITH TRANSGRESSORS'; for that which refers to Me has its fulfillment." They said, "Lord, look, here are two swords." And He said to them, "It is enough."

Pacifism definitely has its place in the Christian life, however, does one sin by not having extreme love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, self-control; whereby against such things there is no law?

God Bless.

[jaydam]

Life for me has been extremely busy as well. Therefore, I will just pursue this one train of thought with you for now.

Matthew 26:52-54
Then Jesus said to him, “Put your sword back in its place! For all who take hold of the sword will die by the sword. Or do you think that I cannot call on my Father, and that he would send me more than twelve legions of angels right now? How then would the scriptures that say it must happen this way be fulfilled?”


1. Jesus also walked with a thief and his betrayer (Judas), some Zealots who wished him to kill Gentiles, and many with other ideas, practices and behaviors that He may or may not have approved of. Peter carrying a sword doesn't necessary imply what Jesus' feelings were about it. In fact, when Peter used the sword, Jesus' response was one of disapproval.

2. I'm confused as to your references to Jesus' rebuke about timing. Is there something in Jesus rebuke that would make you think He would be OK with violence towards enemies at a different time? Jesus' actually heals the victim of Peter's violence! I consider Jesus' rebuke here within the context of the His earlier command:


Matthew 5:43-46
“You have heard that it was said, ‘Love your neighbor’ and ‘hate your enemy.’ But I say to you, love your enemy and pray for those who persecute you, so that you may be like your Father in heaven, since he causes the sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous. For if you love those who love you, what reward do you have? Even the tax collectors do the same, don’t they?

1 - Jesus corrected his followers as needed when they stepped out of bounds, so that is why I see the correction of Peter here to be interesting.

2 - From your Matthew reference, it would appear Christ rebukes Peter for two things - thinking Christ can't help himself if he needed it, and for interfering with what must take place. John 18:11, also has Peter being rebuked, not for violence, but for interfering with what must happen.

The rebuke does not tell Peter, "Put your sword away, for it is never to be used by my followers." or anything of the sort. The rebuke seems situationally dependent, upon the need for nothing to interfere with what must happen then.

Christ's statement of those who live by the sword will die by the sword seems to make no ultimate judgement of sinfulness, but simply is a general lesson. I think the lesson could go further, as Jesus is calling Peter to trust that Christ is in control here, and is choosing to be handed over. A life trusting in Christ being opposed here to a life trusting in the sword as Peter would have. Peter believing it is by the sword that Christ will be defended and established on earth perhaps?

To LIVE by the sword is far different than to utilize the sword when needed. I can carry mace with me to protect myself as needed, but I don't LIVE by my mace, I live by faith in God. If a situation happens too fast for me to access my mace, if the Holy Spirit directs me not to pull out my mace, if I use my mace but it does me no good, it is all ok because I live by faith in God. Mace can be replaced by anything else, a gun, a knife, my fists.

Anyway, I believe Christ's rebuke specific to this situation shows that Christ is specifically leaving room for other situations where violence might be ok.

Relative to Mt 5, and the story of Christ's arrest, I do not believe the kingdom of Christ is to be advanced by the sword (Crusader style), nor do I believe that under direct persecution related to me as a Christian should I use violence in my defense. I see this as a separate matter from getting involved with preventing a random act of rape, mugging, etc.

Additionally, related to Mt 5, I think it is possible to love one's enemy, and still use force necessary to prevent them from carrying out certain actions. My violence carried out would not be due to a lack of love for any party. Today, I think punishment and violence has become too retaliatory in nature rather than rehabilitative. Rehabilitative being with the goal to at least change the behavior, if not the mind and heart.

Violence inflicted upon a rapist who is in the act of rape is really an initial response of punishment with the goal in mind to change the immediate behavior.

Retaliation occurring in instances where a family member not only stops the rape, but then participates in killing the rapist.

I think the Christian can only be engaged in rehabilitation, not retaliation.

[steve]

On the statement, "Those who live by the sword shall die by the sword," A.B. Bruce, in The Training of the Twelve, suggested that, since the dictum is not axiomatic, nor always true, that Jesus was speaking situationally, as if to say, "In this kind of warfare, we must necessarily have the worst of it" (p.465). When I first read this, thirty years ago, it seemed immediately strange to me, though the more I contemplated it, the more reasonable the suggestion seemed.

[Paidion]

They didn't take up the sword by their own account, rather, they followed the words of their Master.

True, but were the words of their Master meant for them to resist aggressors? If so, why then did their Master tell them that two swords were enough? If they had met a group of 10 or 12 aggressors, would two swords have been enough? No, there must have been another reason for their Master to have told them to bring swords. Could it have been a test of his disciples to see whether or not they had learned the lessons of non-resistance as He has instructed them? And did Peter fail the test, by striking the servant of the high priest, cutting off his ear? After Peter had done this, Jesus said, "Permit even this!" and healed the man.

[dizerner]

[user account removed]

[robbyyoung]

They didn't take up the sword by their own account, rather, they followed the words of their Master.

True, but were the words of their Master meant for them to resist aggressors? If so, why then did their Master tell them that two swords were enough? If they had met a group of 10 or 12 aggressors, would two swords have been enough? No, there must have been another reason for their Master to have told them to bring swords. Could it have been a test of his disciples to see whether or not they had learned the lessons of non-resistance as He has instructed them? And did Peter fail the test, by striking the servant of the high priest, cutting off his ear? After Peter had done this, Jesus said, "Permit even this!" and healed the man.

Hi Paidion,

I will generally agree. But I wanted to hear schoel's view. However, I'm at variance, in-part, to your comment, "...there must have been another reason for their Master to have told them to bring swords. Could it have been a test of his disciples to see whether or not they had learned the lessons of non-resistance as He has instructed them? And did Peter fail the test, by striking the servant of the high priest, cutting off his ear?" We should be interested in what is deemed as "SIN". Consider the entirety of the instructions given by Yeshua:

Before you lacked nothing vs.Now you WILL NEED these things;

1. Money Belt
2. Bag
3. Sword

Therefore, would it be a "SIN" for the Disciples to use the Money, Bag, or Sword in service to the Lord? No. The question shouldn't be about how many swords, but rather having a sword AT ALL! The test could have easily been to see if the sword would have been used righteously. After all, The Disciples were still torn between how to handle this situation and asked Yeshua, before doing anything, "Lord, shall we strike with the sword?" Yeshua gave NO REPLY, and therefore the servant was struck! Now after "The Sword" served its purpose, Yeshua replies, "Stop! No more of this."

Therefore, "IF", The Disciples were to continue striking with the sword, they would have been GUILTY of sinning against The Lord (hey that rhymes ). Galatians 5 talks about the works of the flesh, and those who PRACTICE such things are sinning. The situation in question definitely contains a short list of those works. However, was their strife, dissension, anger, etc..., damnable for NOT being completely Passive towards their aggressors?

Is it a SIN to protect your life and the lives of others? I believe it is, if your contention is in doubt (Rom 14:23). But, the admonition still applies, you use weapons of warfare to do so, by the same means, you may see your own demise.

Likewise, is it a SIN to allow the murder and violence of yourself and others when you could have prevented it? Again, I believe it is, if your pacifism is in doubt (Rom 14:23).

God Bless.