First we have the Just War Theory at Just War Theory, which has its origins with Saint Augustine and Thomas Aquinas.
Then most western country military recognize Conscientious objector status at Conscientious objector
Some groups like the Quakers are usually pacifists and even have a settlement started in World War II in Costa Rica - which I’ve visited. I have known Christians who served in the military and those who opposed war. I can respect both positions and the corresponding Christians.
As a Christian I war against violence and the sin within myself. It is a war against war and violence. Triumph over harsh meanness is done with a beautiful gentleness and calm sweetness. I wage war by being gentle - Just as Edwards states.
As a Christian I war against violence and the sin within myself. It is a war against war and violence. Triumph over harsh meanness is done with a beautiful gentleness and calm sweetness. I wage war by being gentle - Just as Edwards states.
No one would dispute that but what if your loved ones are being violently attacked, how would you show your love toward them?
Briefly in relation to Luke 22:36, as always read the whole Gospel, it was a whole narrative without chapters and verses when it was written (as was the oral tradition it was part of, of which Paul bears witness to). Now this simply can’t have a violent aspect to it’s meaning, first off, it is set straight before the public and triumphal entry into Jerusalem, where Jesus deliberately not only evokes the prophecy of Zachariah but equally and more pertinently parodies the entrance that Pilate (representative of Ceasar) used to come into Jerusalem. First there are just two swords, and He says, that is enough, well two swords between 12 Apostles and who knows how many other disciples is hardly enough for armed self defence, let alone anything else, a simple band of armed brigands could have cut them down without any trouble. And when Jesus is arrested and Peter takes out the sword in violent resistance, Jesus rebukes Peter sternly, to put it away saying ‘no more of this, healing Malchus’ ear and uttering the famous statement ‘he who lives by the sword shall die by it,’ and as Tertullian would say, with this action the Messiah denied the use of violence to any soldier (a view as far as we know was unanimously agreed upon by all Christians for the first 300 years at least, soldiers were instead instructed under no certain terms to refuse any order to hurt or kill another person under penty of exclusion of the fellowship and the Eucharist, and no existing Christian could join the army). So these two swords were neither enough for self-protection from robbers, to resist arrest nor were they enough to enable violent rebellion, and this possibility is absolutely denied by the Lord Jesus also refutes just a moment later at the arrest in Luke 22:52, ‘I am leading a rebellion that you have come with swords and clubs?’
The focus on the two swords cannot have any practical instruction (and the resort sometimes to this text out of context to support a case of legitimate violence is desperate reaching), since within the narrative context and the fact two swords are enough for a crowd of disciples makes any literal rather than the use of the swords a symbol of another point is just ridiculous (two swords obviously is not enough if you intend them for physical violence and self-defence of a crowd of people against armed attack).
Rather Jesus is using this to make another point altogether, and accepting that we can find an interpretation that works smoothly in context so that all the pieces of the puzzle fit together.
First, the Lord has reminded the disciples of his mission for them before he arrived in Jerusalem, had they needed a purse, a bag, or extra sandals? No, because people were not hostile and the opposition was not so dangerous, and was something that built over three years. Now, however, he is in Jerusalem entering public as Messiah in open collusion with both Rome (seen in His entrance both as Messiah and parodying Pilate), Herod (for the same reasons) and the Temple authorities (in both this and culminating with His symbolic act of judgement at the Temple in the cleansing of the Temple), and he has undergone the compacted antagonism of Pharisees and Sadducaic leaders seeking to trap him with self-incriminating words. When the authorities are not present, they send their spies and agents to case Him to try and trap Him. The atmosphere was tense with threatened violence and tension simmering everywhere as power interests felt threatened and political powers reacted. These two two swords—no more than that—represent the tension. Jesus’ mission has shifted to a moment of clear and obvious danger, and the disciples need to be alert, awake and alert. However, he certainly did not intend for his disciples to use the swords, and we saw above both to those arresting Him and above all His instruction to Peter to put away his sword (and in HIs whole teaching and example in Luke alone).
Also He said ‘For I tell you, this scripture must be fulfilled in me: ‘And he was numbered among the lawless’’ in Luke 22:37 and so by far the clearest purpose of the two swords is Jesus’ reference to Isaiah’s prophecy ] and used the swords as a demonstration of this point. He was destined to be arrested like a criminal, put on trial like a criminal, and even crucified like a criminal, though He was innocent, but He would be hung on the cross between two thieves, also fulfilling Isaiah’s prophecy. And what are criminals known for carrying with them and this time, weapons and swords and to be numbered among criminals and the lawless, of identifying with damaged and broken humanity, Jesus must also have weapons. That is why he said that only two swords would be enough—to fulfill this prophecy and it’s purpose. Further, the Gospel according to Matthew mentions fulfilling this prophecy and purpose in Matthew 26:54 and if Peter had kept on physically using the sword to prevent Christ’s arrest, prophecy would not have been accomplished smoothly and without hindrance. Jesus says that he could call on twelve legions of angels to protect him, meaning he is destined by God to die because otherwise death and evil would not be defeated, and freedom of completion of humanity would not happen. You cannot use the tools of evil to face or defeat evil or tyranny, to do so is join it (death, evil and chaos don’t care if you wish to use different names and terms, you bow and serve the same master all the same) This is why Jesus told Peter to put his sword back in its place in Matthew 26:52, and in the Lukan narrative He tells Peter (and all of us), ‘No more of this!’ in Luke 22:51 (which is why the early Christians as voiced by Tertullian had the clear and unanimous voice they did).
Jesus often used (as did most ancient world leaders and teachers, and certainly Jewish rabbis) common objects such as seeds, lamps, vineyards, coins, lost sheep and so on to teach deeper truths, and to example to disciples who were having a hard time understanding how the Kingdom of God was and would were (given they were expecting sometime very different) and guide and reveal to them the reality that was dawning (and remembering the fig tree and the symbolic act in the Temple, and the entrance external aids and symbolic acts revealing concrete meanings and the dawning of the new age were part of HIs ministry). And it was not the only time He would use swords as a symbol for another concrete meaning, such as in Matthew 10:34 ‘Do not suppose that I have come to bring peace to the earth, but a sword’, which has nothing to do with a physical sword that cuts up and bloodies the family, but a spiritual and moral one that may divide a family as a result of reaction to the Gospel of the Kingdom. And it is precisely Luke who clarifies Jesus’ meaning of “sword” as nonliteral, in the two parallel passages of Matthew 10:34 and Luke 12:51. If Luke does this in 12:51, this logic follows with the two swords of 22:36-38.
As for more on this, I have made my view and points on this a number of times, and so won’t do so yet again, I’ll just link the threads in which I have (including in relation to ISIS).
In relation to this question to ISIS:
Another active thread on this topic:
And a thread I started:
With that I bow out, and simply maintain my position the rejection of violence at all levels is one the clearest teachings in the NT, which I again say it is tragedy that where Christians talk and argue so strongly against others for things are far more deliberately, here the instruction is watered down, contained to something that is only between ‘personal relations’ (as if being killed by someone isn’t personal, not matter how far away they are) and made something safe, something that won’t threaten or challenge our life, something not to radical. And therefore, any voice Christians have in relation to war and violence is muted and seen as muddled, confusing, weak and sometimes outright hypocritical by those without when they read the NT for themselves.
Well, this just made my day… to see you start one of your magnum opuses with the word “briefly” – surely such incongruity is in jest! sherv.net/cm/emo/laughing/crying-with-laughter.gif PS: I say that FULLY tongue in cheek.
I agree with NightRevan that it’s nearly impossible to construe Jesus as calling his followers to use violence. He explicitly says that his movement did not intend to fight, and the context of Luke 22:36 shouts that this verse did not intend an exception to this. In their first-century context, even his call to love their “enemies” would have been heard to apply (not only to personal relationships, but) to their approach to Rome as the wickedly oppressive empire that they expected a Messiah to challenge. This may fall short of ruling out every argument against pacifism, but if most scholars are correct that Jesus violated all expectation by opposing physical violence toward evil human beings, his orthodox identity as the full revelation of God, at least gives one pause about concluding that such violence is God’s way for us to deal with evil.
This may fall short of ruling out every argument against pacifism, but if most scholars are correct that Jesus violated all expectation by opposing physical violence toward evil human beings, his orthodox identity as the full revelation of God, at least gives one pause about concluding that such violence is God’s way for us to deal with evil.
I don’t disagree Bob , but where the rubber meets the road, is hypothetically speaking if you had a loved one being violently attacked and there was no time to call the police and their life was imminently endangered and pacifism didn’t work, what would you do?
In other words do you think there is ever a time where violence is justified?
Let me inject theological answers from Got Questions - a Protestant biblical site and philosophically - by introducing the moral dilemma. Anyone is welcome to respond to either approach.
Moral Dilemmas
The problem with taking absolute positions is that it would open you up to Ethical dilemmas, like those found at Ethical dilemmas 1 or Ethical dilemmas 2.
The first article says,
Wiki in the second article says,
A perfect example is this. Suppose I had a child and suppose someone is running towards them, to kill them with a knife. I have a gun and can shot the killer dead. Should I do nothing and let the child die? Or should I shoot the killer and save the child? Which would it be? Whose life is more important - the killer’s or the child’s?
We could even make the above example more interesting. Suppose the killer was your wife (or husband, if you are female), who has a psychotic problem. She forgot to take her medication today. She is the one coming at your child with a knife, saying she is going to kill them. And you are too weak from a flu virus, to physically stop her. You only have the gun option. What would you do?
How would pacifists resolve this and other ethical dilemmas?
We could even inject some interesting alternatives to the above ethical dilemma. Like:
What if the killer is a Zombie from the Walking Dead?
What if the killer is Mr. Data from Star Trek - the Next Generation?
What if the killer is a clone of your neighbor from Invasion of the Body Snatchers?
What if the killer is the Frankenstein monster?
Do we still face the same moral or ethical dilemma? Unless you have a solid theological and philosophical solution to ethical dilemmas, then you are threading on shaky ground.
Some Moral dilemmas to reflect upon
Let me leave you with some interesting moral dilemmas to reflect upon at:
Well, briefly for me , I’m afraid saying things concisely remains more a dream than a reality for me TL.DR posts remain my cross to bear (and for others their cross to read if they care bear the pain
I looked at the first three paragraphs of “Was Jesus a pacifist?” and was not positively impressed.
The author quotes the following verses in an attempt to show that He was not:
Here the “sharp sword” that comes out of His mouth, clearly is not a physical sword, but the word “sword” is symbolic of His words, which are powerful enough to “strike down nations”, that is, overcome them.
Here again, the sword is figurative. It is the sword of division bewteen those who submit to Jesus and become His disciples, and those who don’t. There will always be conflicts within family groups over this matter.
There is not a single instance in the life of Christ in which He used physical violence. Rather He said, " If my kingdom were of this world, my servants would have been fighting, that I might not be delivered over to the Jews. But my kingdom is not from the world.” (John 18:36).
When you mention the sword was figurative, you bring up a point I’ve been reflecting upon. When something in the bible is figurative or literal. The Roman Catholic Church and Eastern Orthodox churches have a tendency to look at biblical things symbolically - more often than not. And Protestant folks like to take things literally - causing many fights and divisions. Then we can take literalism to an extreme.
An example is the bible verse about picking up serpents and not being harmed. Yet some Pentecostal churches in the rural south do take that literally. And they have snake handling services. Are they taking literalism a bit too far?
Then I thought about the verse that some among you will not see death, until they see the kingdom of God, come in its glory. If the kingdom is not referring to something immediate in Jewish understanding, does that mean there are immortals among us - until the end of time?
I don’t agree with everything Got Questions has to say - after all, they are a Protestant biblical site, seeing things through their own theological lens. But their answers to questions are a good starting point for discussion.
I still think the moral or ethical dilemma I referred to earlier, presents a good stumbling block to absolute pacifism.
Where push comes to shove Paul gives some useful instruction along these lines… “Be angry, and do not sin”: do not let the sun go down on your wrath.” – Jesus we know in a fit of rage, for sake of more mild terminology, fully upended a lot of money changers’ tables. And… “*IF it is possible, as much as depends on you, live peaceably with all men.*” – sometimes for various reasons such is not so easy.
Ethical or moral dilemmas can be even be situations where nothing drastic will happen. There’s a popular Pentecostal Chicago preacher on local access TV. His wife is always shown on TV - in the audience - wearing awful hats. She once had one on that looked exactly like a flower pot - full of flowers. It was the ugliest hat you ever saw. Imagine you are friends with the TV reverend and his wife. Then the wife asks you, “how do you like my new hat?” You can tell her it’s awful and hurt her feelings. Or you can say it is great and lie. Or you can say something like, “this hat brings out the real you” or “It’s nice that the flowers are the same color as your hair.” How would you answer her?
For our struggle is not against flesh and blood, but against the rulers, against the authorities, against the powers of this dark world and against the spiritual forces of evil in the heavenly realms. Eph. 6:12.
A quote from Richard Murray, on greater and lesser evil, taken from his article, “What Is The Tree Of The Knowledge Of Good And Evil?”:
Steve, you ask if I personally would do violence to an attacker of my loved ones. I suspect yes, since I see violent inclinations in myself (especially toward ones who threaten what matters most to me) that are quite opposed to the approach Jesus urged. So, yes, my outlook makes me question the view that being violent toward others is never God’s will and thus not justified for us who follow in Jesus’ way. Yet, since the posted question was what the Bible (& Jesus!) taught on this, I argued that Jesus consistently pushed against what I am inclined to feel is appropriate. If honestly you “don’t disagree” with my argument that Jesus consistently “opposed us using physical violence upon evil human beings,” then it appears that we both have a tension between what we are inclined to justify, and what Jesus modeled and taught. I’d hesitate to just ignore his view.
First, we DO NOT know how a violent person is going to react to non-violence. We can read a Tolstoi story in which an army wished to take over a town, and none of the town people resisted. Many gave the army what they needed. The army commander didn’t find it much “fun” trying to make war with people who wouldn’t fight, and so finally they stopped trying to fight with them, and left.
Nicki Kruz threatened to kill David Wilkerson when David was witnessing to him. David neither backed down nor showed any fear. But he didn’t try to fight Nicki or resist him. Nicki broke down and became a Christian, and later an evangelist. I was privileged to attend one of his campaigns. It was VERY powerful. Hundreds were converted, and then counselled in every hallway in the building.
Then in my area, there was a powerful man of God, an older man, who was with the Christian Shantyman’s Accociation. He walked dozens of miles into bush camps to reach men who were never reached with the gospel. They kicked out every other preacher, but when Brother Winslow came along, they all gathered to hear him. One day when Mr. Winslow was visiting a man in the top story of an apartment building and urged him to entrust himself to Christ, the man threatened to hurl him downstairs. Brother Winslow kept urging, and then suddenly the man dropped to his knees, and poured his heart out to the Lord.
What would have happened (or perhaps I should ask, “What WOULDN’T have happened?” in the above cases if the potentially violent man had been resisted?
First, we DO NOT know how a violent person is going to react to non-violence. We can read a Tolstoi story in which an army wished to take over a town, and none of the town people resisted. Many gave the army what they needed. The army commander didn’t find it much “fun” trying to make war with people who wouldn’t fight, and so finally they stopped trying to fight with them, and left.
That’s a nice story but non-violence didn’t impress Hitler much. The Jews were generally non-violent, so were the JWs, so were the gays,so were the disabled folks, so were the gypsies, so were other undesirables, yet it didn’t impress Hitler and i suspect it wouldn’t impress ISIS much either. Evil isn’t impressed by goodness, not in this present evil age.
I agree Jesus advocated pacifism but i don’t see an example where he encouraged sacrificing one’s loved ones to evil. It’s one thing if you choose to sacrifice your own life, but i don’t think we have the right to choose to sacrifice others.
, I’m afraid saying things concisely remains more a dream than a reality for me 