There's a passage that comes up all the time in discussions of peace theology. (Even Lewis alluded to it in his essay against pacifism, which surprised me.) Just before his arrest, Jesus told the disciples that now was the time to buy swords, because things were going to get rough (
src).
I've dealt with this passage before, and suffice it to say that for a number of reasons, I don't think it's an example of Jesus condoning violence.
But I realized tonight while reading that other than the presence of the word sword, the burden isn't really on the pacifist to explain why this passage doesn't lend itself to a pacifist reading. Because, first, there is the obvious fact that only a few verses later Peter is rebuked by Jesus for using one of the swords, with the famous dictum that "He who lives by the sword shall die by the sword," but moreover, the entire tenor of Jesus' missional teachings and the New-Testament church practice is against it.
Jesus missional teachings - Matthew 10:17-22 "Be on your guard against men; they will hand you over to the local councils and flog you in their synagogues. You will even be brought before governors and kings because of Me, to bear witness to them and to the nations. But when they hand you over, don't worry about how or what you should speak. For you will be given what to say at that hour, because you are not speaking, but the Spirit of your Father is speaking through you."
- Matthew 5:12 "Blessed are you when they insult you and persecute you and falsely say every kind of evil against you because of Me.
- John 15:18-20 "If the world hates you, keep in mind that it hated me first. If you belonged to the world, it would love you as its own. As it is, you do not belong to the world, but I have chosen you out of the world. That is why the world hates you. Remember the words I spoke to you: 'No servant is greater than his master.' If they persecuted me, they will persecute you also."
- John 16:2-3 "They will put you out of the synagogue; in fact, a time is coming when anyone who kills you will think he is offering a service to God. They will do such things because they have not known the Father or me."
In sum, Jesus taught that his followers would naturally be persecuted and treated in much the same way that he was. Specifically, Jesus did not instruct or seem to expect that his followers would combat this injustice. No mention is made of swords, nor of resistance, nor of any kind of supernatural intervention. In fact, Jesus taught that the Spirit would use these times to witness to the gospel, which is precisely the example we see throughout Acts and Paul's letters.
New-Testament church practice- Acts 5:17-18 "Then the high priest and all his associates, who were members of the party of the Sadducees, were filled with jealousy. They arrested the apostles and put them in the public jail."
- 1 Timothy 3:12-13 "In fact, everyone who wants to live a godly life in Christ Jesus will be persecuted, while evil men and impostors will go from bad to worse, deceiving and being deceived."
- Acts 7:54-60 "When they heard these things, they were enraged in their hearts and gnashed their teeth at him. But Stephen, filled by the Holy Spirit, gazed into heaven. He saw God's glory, with Jesus standing at the right hand of God, and he said, 'Look! I see the heavens opened and the Son of Man standing at the right hand of God!' Then they screamed at the top of their voices, stopped their ears, and rushed together against him. They threw him out of the city and began to stone him. And the witnesses laid their robes at the feet of a young man named Saul. They were stoning Stephen as he called out: "Lord Jesus, receive my spirit!" Then he knelt down and cried out with a loud voice, "Lord, do not charge them with this sin!" And saying this, he fell asleep.
- Acts 16:22-23 "The crowd rose up together against them, and the chief magistrates tore their robes off them and proceeded to order them to be beaten with rods.When they had struck them with many blows, they threw them into prison, commanding the jailer to guard them securely."
- Philippians 1:12-14 "Now I want you to know, brothers, that what has happened to me has really served to advance the gospel. As a result, it has become clear throughout the whole palace guard and to everyone else that I am in chains for Christ. Because of my chains, most of the brothers in the Lord have been encouraged to speak the word of God more courageously and fearlessly."
- Revelation 6:9 "When He opened the fifth seal, I saw under the altar the souls of those slaughtered because of God's word and the testimony they had."
In sum, the early church's practices and teachings were consistently in line with the expectations Jesus laid out in regard to his followers' mission and persecution. Never do we see armed resistance, or the expectation of armed resistance. Instead, we see persecutions, stonings, beatings, unjust imprisonment, and, most impressively,
those being killed using the opportunity to preach forgiveness to their killers, through the gospel.
Basically, it seems like the New Testament letters and the Book of Acts is describing a bunch of pacifists.
---
So what are we left with? No compelling argument for pacifism, surely. But the person who wants to argue that Jesus told his followers to buy swords for their own defense in the time after the resurrection (which is a terribly flawed argument on its own terms), has to fit that view into the largely unmatching trajectory of the New Testament witness, where those swords are never seen or their absence noticed.
(Certainly, it is not acceptable to force a dichotomy into the text between unacceptable violence in defense of the gospel and acceptable violence in self-defense. From the New Testament perspective, all of life is in service to the spreading of the gospel.)
So I have a question (perhaps a thinly veiled challenge?). For those of you who do believe Jesus advocated the possibility of armed self-defense, how do you read the Book of Acts? Was it an exceptional time in the church's growth? Or are there implicit violent undertones? Or was violence not outlawed but simply impractical, given the low social standing of the church leaders at the time?
Because I'm having a hard time seeing how anyone could read Acts and
not conclude that they believed Jesus modeled nonviolence.
Comments (17)
dang, man! go to bed! wait...that means I'm up too doesn't it?
I don't know what to think of this. Why do you think Jesus told his disciples to get swords after the resurrection? Many of the disciples were martyred. Obviously, even if they didn't use their swords, it didn't deter people from hurting them.
This is the kind of stuff that people would say is a contradiction in the bible and then they'd use that to say the bible is false. I don't believe that there are any contradictions in the bible, although it may seem that way from just a superficial reading, without reading the original text and learning the cultural context.
I bookmarked this. I'm writing an essay on the same topic for one of my classes. :)
I don't think the Apostles associated the use of force with religious goals, but that it was associated with secular and governmental goals, legitimately, as Romans 13:1-5 would seem to indicate.
I agree with the person above me. The gospel was never brought about with swords or violence. Governmental injustice, however, was often stopped by a sword.
@FixingtoLive - I'm not sure how you can distinguish imprisonment and beatings for preaching Christ from governmental injustice. When Paul was executed by the state, was that gospel work, or governmental injustice? How could it not be both?
@P_Obrien - I definitely agree that Romans 13 grants the state some measure of force to uphold the peace and restrain destructive elements to society. How much force is debateable, of course. But I can't read Romans 12-13 as a single literary unit without coming to the conclusion that the church and the state have different aims that largely don't translate from one to the other.
@droftreeology - Personally, I think it was a figure of speech, saying that things were going to get tough. As always, the disciples misunderstand, and say, "Look, we have two swords here!" As though two swords for twelve people is going to be much protection, but Jesus says, "It's enough," which might mean that he naively thinks two swords are enough, but more likely means that he is frustrated that yet again they misunderstand, and is saying, "That's enough sword talk." That's how I read it, anyway.
@SirNickDon - hmm, that makes sense. i looked at the IVP new testament commentary on biblegateway and it mentioned spiritual swords.
sometimes you just have to snicker at the disciples. but all of this stuff that seems common sense to us was completely new to them. :P it's a good thing Jesus had patience.
@SirNickDon - I agree that the state has some leeway to use force, but that, of course, leaves us with the question of what a Christian in the government should do? Let the atheists do our dirty work for us? If force must be wielded, and if the state may wield it legitimately, then it is better that it be wielded by men who posess other Christian virtues such as integrity, restraint, and compassion. More importantly, it should ideally be used only by men who answer to a higher than human authority, which pretty much limits your pool of desirable soldiers and cops.
@P_Obrien - The common understanding from Christian pacifist groups is that they shouldn't be in government. In their vision of the church, it stands a political alternative to the state. This shouldn't leave the state in a morass, though, because the Christian community would be actively and intimately involved in peacemaking and other forms of political responsibility in whatever nation they find themselves. This sounds idealistic, but consider the effects that the monasteries had in the middle ages, as centers of learning and charity in a time before public education and welfare programs. Also keep in mind that hospitals were a Christian vocation before they became publicly run agencies. Liberatarians like Ron Paul actually want to get rid of federally run hospitals, believing that faith-based organizations will willingly step in again if the need is there.
More directly relevent is the Quaker peace witness in the last hundred years in America. It was the Quakers who brokered the first diplomatic contacts between the U.S. and the Soviet Union fifty years ago, and they have also had significant impact on the debate about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, and very practical, real-world options for nuclear disarmament. Because the Quakers stand as a distinctive, univocal group, apart from party lines, and also because their work is characterized by hard data and research, and respectable scholarship, they are a Christian group whose voice stands out in peacemaking. Contrast that with, say, Jerry Falwell.
In fact, I think that Speak Truth to Power: A Quaker Search for an Alternative to Violence is a terrific resource for this conversation.
"the obvious fact that only a few verses later Peter is rebuked by Jesus
for using one of the swords, with the famous dictum that "He who lives
by the sword shall die by the sword,""
-- It's certainly arguable whether Jesus was teaching pacifism, or he just knew he had to go to the cross. He knew his time had come, so it probably seemed a little silly to violently fight against something you had to (and were going to) do anyway.
This may be a minor detail, but it's not just a few verses after the Jesus' statement "it is enough" that he says this. The two statements are close together in the placement in the general gospel story, but the statement "it is enough" is only in Luke, while the "He who lives by the sword..." is not found in Luke, but is in Matthew instead. Even if we compile all the events and statements of the four gospels into one "super-gospel", I still don't think this necessary implies total pacifism. Jesus referenced those who "live by the sword", which seems a far cry from those who carry it merely for possible self-defense purposes.
The rest of the verses you list actually say nothing about pacifism (or self-defense) in and of itself. It's just saying people will hate them, and that they'll be (or were) arrested or beaten. But just because one is arrested or beaten does not mean one is a pacifist. It might just be a matter of practicality. Swords carried by the apostles may be effective in deterring robbers along the rural backroads they travel, but they're probably ineffective if they're dealing with larger groups or governing authorities. It's like the difference between using a gun to stop a burglar, and just surrendering when the SWAT team shows up. If you try to stop an entire group of trained men with more powerful weapons and are better protected, you're just asking for it. If one's self-defense will not actually defend them, there's no point in doing it.
Basically, to reach the conclusions you have, I think you have to read things into all of those that just aren't explicitly there. The absence of stories of self-defense on the part of the apostles does not logically imply they were called not to do it. It's very well possible that there were no practical times to use it, that any effect it had was not noticed (e.g. deterring the robber they meet out on a rural road), that any use was minor and not worth recording, and/or the author was not aware of any use that may have happened.
"but Jesus says, "It's enough," which might
mean that he naively thinks two swords are enough, but more likely
means that he is frustrated that yet again they misunderstand, and is
saying, "That's enough sword talk.""
-- I don't see how this interpretation is obvious from the text. The only people I've heard make this interpretation are hardened pacifist who are essentially forced to interpret the saying this way. If that's what Jesus meant, it's a very awkward way to say it. Granted, I'm not fluent in ancient Greek, so I can't really go back to the original text to see if anything in enlightening (merely looking up the Greek words doesn't seem to add anything beyond the obvious). I'm not saying that it's not possible that Jesus actually meant that here, but that it just seems like it stretches to reach an interpretation pre-determined by one's position on an issue, and dismisses what appears to be the most natural interpretation.
So what do you say about the part of the gospel when Jesus drives the people out of the temple with the whip of cords and overturns the table? I realize this is self-defense, but it still doesn't seem like something a strict pacifist would do (i.e. using, or a least threatening, people with a weapon to force them to do something they don't want to do).
@thechris38 - I'm hardly fluent in Koine Greek, but I've had a few years. The argument is that the singular pronoun can't refer to multiple objects. Strictly speaking, we shouldn't do it in English, either, but we're very relaxed about it. ("That's enough swords for us" is sort of awkward, but passes in daily speech.) But in Greek it just isn't done, you'd have to say "Those are enough." Reflexive languages have to be much more demanding about pronoun-object agreement and verb tense agreement, and if you assume that Jesus is doing it here, it's the only time the rule is broken in the Greek New Testament.
There are reputable ecumenical translations that render it this way, for that reason. Holman Christian Standard, for instance.
But that's just a side note.
Really, this post isn't meant to be an exhaustive argument for nonviolence, just a treatment of that passage. I take your response seriously, it definitely has common-sense on its side. My problem is that people use this passage not to argue for home defense, but to argue that Christians should serve in national militaries, etc.
Really, the whole argument needs to be redefined from one about violence ever being permissible to one about the scope of gospel living. Everyone, to one degree or another, realizes that Jesus dissuades us from violence, even if that's just condemning the Crusades. The question is how far does that go?
As for your last question, I definitely agree that Jesus' actions condone disruptive social protest. Burning draft cards, pouring blood on nuclear weapons, when Rage Against the Machine performed on Wall Street and they had to shut down the Stock Market for the rest of the day. I don't think that the Temple incident justifies self-defense, because nobody was intent on harming Jesus or his followers. If it justifies violence at all, what it justifies is religious extremism, violence committed by an unauthorized individual on the basis of a perceived divine calling. But for some reason, that's a reading of the passage that none of my just-war friends are willing to accept.
@SirNickDon -
" But in Greek it just isn't done, you'd have to say "Those are enough.""
-- That's the first time I've heard anybody explain it like that. That definitely changes the way one would read it. So now the confusing part (at least for me) is figuring out the implications of that statement and why Jesus would say it. Since he did already go and tell them to buy swords, it doesn't seem that he's now speaking against sword ownership. Is he just annoyed with them? It just seems like an awkward thing to say. But I'm guessing there could be something going on that I'm oblivious to. Is it possible that the "it" in 22:38 could be referring to something besides "sword-talk"?
And while we're on the topic of confusing statements, do you have anything to say about the verse before that (Luke 22:37) in regards to Jesus still needing to be "numbered with the transgressors"? Who are the transgressors in question? Does this have anything to do with the sword talk? Or is Jesus moving on past all of that to tell them something else, and they jump back to talking about swords (which could be a good reason for Jesus' words in verse 38)? Then again, I have a feeling this may just be nonsense and I'm just making things up.
"I don't think that the Temple incident justifies self-defense"
-- Actually, that was just a typo in my original comment. I meant to say, "I realize this is not self-defense", but left out the word "not", lol. My apologies, my statement probably made no sense like that.
@thechris38 - I know that some pacifists say that Jesus set the whole thing up to fulfill the prophecy that the messiah would be numbered among transgressors (which is sort of a general term for brigands; you could be tried for it under Roman law, and it's probably what the two crucified alongside Jesus were convicted of), the same way he set up entering Jerusalem on a donkey. So he wanted them to have swords so that he could be arrested on that pretense.
I don't really buy that, myself. Especially given the scene at the arrest, the rebuke of Peter, etc. It seems a stretch.
I think the best explanation is that Jesus was using swords as a figure of speech, perhaps knowing that they had a couple on them, the same way he told them to "beware the leaven of the pharisees" when they forgot to bring bread. So it was a figure of speech, basically meaning that things were going to get rough. But as long as he was saying it, and knowing that they had swords, he threw in that scripture reference, which is from the song of the Suffering Servant in Isaiah, which was certainly on his mind in those days in particular. He referenced it more than almost any other single section of scripture.
Yeah, your temple comment makes more sense now.
For me, the "important" part of pacifism isn't self-defense against an intruder, or not using violence to stop someone being raped, though I accept those as part of overall peace theology. I might use violence defending my home, just like I might get angry and swear at a coworker, but I wouldn't justify the behavior as Christian. The important part of peace theology to me is the non-participation of the church in the violence of the state. Ironically, just-war Christians like to use Romans 13 to support Christians fighting in nationalistic wars, but I like to use Romans 12-13 as a literary whole to argue against it.
I think the Christian commitment to nonviolence boils down to Mt 5:43-48. Be perfect, in this context, means to love indiscriminately: family, neighbor, personal enemy, national enemy, victim, attacker, all of it. Everyone who experiences either rain or sunshine, love them. Which means some options are excluded for the Christian, including military service, including using a sword in self-defense. That's not all there is to it, of course, but that's the center of peace theology for me.
@SirNickDon - The problem with saying that Christians shouldn't be involved with government, is that government is made up of people, and every one of those people should be a Christian. What are they supposed to do? Become Christians and find a new job? If all Christians followed the dictum to not be involved in government then the only thing you would have accomplished is to deny the most responsible people the positions where they are needed most.
The biggest problem I have with pacifism is that I can not reconcile it with Love. God has given me certain gifts. He has given me an aggressive nature, tempered by compassion, an unusually high level of physical strength and endurance, and a strong affinity for combat. It's hard to explain if you've never felt it, but combat is actually fun. I am not for the moment saying that evil things can't be fun, but I am saying that all of those things are gifts from God, to be used for His purposes. I can not, posessing the gifts I posess, then sit by and let evil men do evil things. I can not reconcile that with love of their victims, or with love for them. If I were to somehow become a homicidal maniac I would count it the mercy of a brother to put a bullet in my head before I hurt anyone, if that were the only way to stop me. Similarly, if there are evil people in my sphere of influence and they are doing evil things to innocent people, I have to stop them, by whatever means necessary. This does not mean that killing them is my only option. Because I am a warrior I have a whole range of options from pacifism to lethal force and everything in between. If I were a pacifist, I would only have pacifist options, and those are not always enough. Because I Love my neighbor I will defend him to the death if need be. I can't see any other loving option.
I know this is an old post, but I have a few questions, also I'm in a hurry right now so I didn't read the comments, forgive me if this has been addressed.
In one of the gospels a group of soldiers came up to John the Baptist, and asked what they should do. He tells them, not to quit fighting, but rather to be just in their interactions, not using their position to take advantage of people. also, Paul greets the brothers in the praetorian guard, yet offers no rebuke.
could it be that when working under the authority instituted by God to keep order, and punish the wicked, that we are doing what is right? I don't think that we can say that the roman occupation of Israel was just, so perhaps it goes even beyond just war theory.
now clearly, this does not effect how we should react to personal attacks, and if Christianity became illegal, by no means would it be OK to fight the police, because they are the authority, whether good or bad.
hope that made sense, I am interested to see your take on this, I'm sure it's nothing you haven't heard before. \
Thanks! and I'm off to work.
Servants of Christ will not fight John 18:36. A Christian is trying to be more christlike, and has the understanding that the flesh and this world is not of his kingdom, not many can hear these words, which may be a good thing, for if you have the wisedom of these words and don't obey there is certain death. Remember christ is praying for the soldiers, for they do not know what they do. Greater are those who die for him. He who loses his life for my sake will recieve life. 1 Cor. 15:35-49. Luke 22 is all about how we don't understand. Remember this was the time the deciples still had doubts, for Peter denied him three times, but after Christ reapeared all who saw him went to there deaths not denying him this must have some merit. believe what you want, as for me I think Jesus wants us to do as he did. He tore the veil so that we may step on holy ground and join him. He is the greatest example of luv. When we finally let the devil have his world is when Jesus will trully show his. Stop trying to make this world better and look forward to his.
Personally, I think you're right- Christians are well advised to practice non-violence in most circumstances. However, when called to protecting other people, I do not, will not, and cannot practice non-violence.
In addition to this, I wrote a rather interesting blog awhile back on violence toward others and how Christians should deal with persecution when their loved ones are the ones being persecuted: when there are other casualties...