should christians be pacifists

[handy]

Minn, I think that there is much in Ecclesiastes that reveal the writers worries, but ultimate trust in God. However, I also believe that the words penned in chapter 3:1-8 are inspired by the Spirit.

I see that the Spirit does move us through various times. Is there a time to hate? Surely God hates. He hates sin, He hates the deeds of darkness.

Are there times for war? Paul tells us that the government bears the sword as a minister of God.

Are there times when we are to defend ourselves or others? Didn't Jesus tell the disciples, upon the eve of His death that if they didn't have a sword to sell their robe and buy one?

 

[jasoncran]

Minn, I think that there is much in Ecclesiastes that reveal the writers worries, but ultimate trust in God. However, I also believe that the words penned in chapter 3:1-8 are inspired by the Spirit.

I see that the Spirit does move us through various times. Is there a time to hate? Surely God hates. He hates sin, He hates the deeds of darkness.

Are there times for war? Paul tells us that the government bears the sword as a minister of God.

Are there times when we are to defend ourselves or others? Didn't Jesus tell the disciples, upon the eve of His death that if they didn't have a sword to sell their robe and buy one?

if u stumble upon the act of violence and we are able to stop it with any means neccessary, the violent act will kill or maim the victim for the sake of discussion, how could we turn away if we are a that time the only means to save that person, there's a law in some states for that, i believe, how can we call ourselves christian if we fail to help the weak and defensless in that situation. i would have to help, Jason

 

[Guest]

handy,

I'm not sure how that relates to my question.

 

[handy]

handy,

I'm not sure how that relates to my question.

So sorry, Minnesota. I was actually responding to Drew's post, not yours.

Your question, I'm not sure I want to address here, because it's off topic and you and I both know what a hot-button it could be. ;)

 

[stovebolts]

In Romans it says,
If it be possible, as much as lieth in you, live peaceably with all men.

Antagonist? No. Instigator? No. Quarelsome? No. But not defend myself or my family, and just let it happen? No, never.

But, I thank God for all who have served in our armed forces, and who have stood watch and protected our freedoms. Because of their service to our country we still have a free country. God bless our Veterans!

Oh, by the way, "vanity" is an interesting word to study. Some think that every time you see it in Scripture it means, "vain." The Hebrew word literally means, "vapor" or, "breath." All is vanity; all is like a vapor, or breath - a short time, not lasting very long.

Hi Mike and welcome!

A very thoughtful and concisely articulated response Thanks for sharing!

 

[kiwimac]

Perhaps these quotes from the life of the Early Church will help this discussion:

“We who were filled with war, and mutual slaughter, and every wickedness, have each through the whole earth changed our warlike weaponsâ€â€our swords into ploughshares, and our spears into implements of tillageâ€â€and we cultivate piety, righteousness, philanthropy, faith, and hope, which we have from the Father Himself through Him who was crucified.†– Justin Martyr (100-165 AD), Dialogue with Trypho 110

“We who formerly used to murder one another do not only now refrain from making war upon our enemies, but also, that we may not lie nor deceive our examiners, willingly die confessing Christ.†– Justin Martyr (100 – 165 AD), Apology 1.39

“For it is not in war, but in peace, that we are trained.†– Clement of Alexandria (150-aprox 211 AD), The Instructor 1.12

“Above all, Christians are not allowed to correct with violence the delinquencies of sins.†– Clement of Alexandria (150-aprox 211 AD), Fragments: Maximus, Sermon 55

“The catechumen or faithful who wants to become a soldier is to be rejected, for he has despised God.†– Hippolytus (170-236 AD), The Apostolic Tradition 16.11.

“But how will a Christian war, nay, how will he serve even in peace without a sword, which the Lord has taken away? For albeit soldiers had come unto John, and had received the formula of their rule; albeit, likewise, a centurion had believed, still the Lord afterward, in disarming Peter, unbelted every soldier.†– Tertullian (160-225 AD), On Idolatry 19

“Shall it be held lawful to make an occupation of the sword, when the Lord proclaims that he who uses the sword shall perish by the sword? And shall the son of peace take part in the battle when it does not become him even to sue at law? And shall he apply the chain, and the prison, and the torture, and the punishment, who is not the avenger even of his own wrongs?†– Tertullian (160-225 AD), The Chaplet 11

“We cannot endure even to see a man put to death, though justly.†– Athenagoras of Athen (aprox 180 AD), A Plea for the Christians 35

“And as we by our prayers vanquish all demons who stir up war, and lead to the violation of oaths, and disturb the peace, we in this way are much more helpful to the kings than those who go into the field to fight for them… And none fight better for the king than we do. We do not indeed fight under him, although he require it; but we fight on his behalf, forming a special army – an army of piety – by offering our prayers to God.†– Origen of Alexandria (185-254 AD), Against Celsus 8.73

“And to those who inquire of us whence we come, or who is our founder we reply that we are come, agreeably to the counsels of Jesus, to cut down our hostile and insolent wordy swords into ploughshares, and to convert into pruning-hooks the spears formerly employed in war. For we no longer take up sword against nation, nor do we learn war any more, having become children of peace, for the sake of Jesus, who is our leader.†– Origen of Alexandria (185-254 AD), Against Celsus 5.33

“Therefore they are to be accounted as savage beasts who injure man; who, in opposition to every law and right of human nature, plunder, torture, slay, and banish.†– Lactantius of Bithynia (aprox 240-317 AD), Divine Institutes 6.10

“Thus it will be neither lawful for a just man to engage in warfare, since his warfare is justice itself, nor to accuse any one of a capital charge, because it makes no difference whether you put a man to death by word, or rather by the sword, since it is the act of putting to death itself which is prohibited. Therefore, with regard to this precept of God, there ought to be no exception at all; but that it is always unlawful to put to death a man, whom God willed to be a sacred animal.†– Lactantius of Bithynia (aprox 240-317 AD), Divine Institutes 6.20

“The whole world is wet with mutual blood; and murder, which in the case of an individual is admitted to be a crime, is called a virtue when it is committed wholesale. Impunity is claimed for the wicked deeds, not on the plea that they are guiltless, but because the cruelty is perpetrated on a grand scale.†– Cyprian of Carthage (250 AD), Epistle 1.6

“And this is at least incredible, inasmuch as even now those Barbarians who have an innate savagery of manners . . . and cannot endure to be a single hour without weapons; but when they hear the teaching of Christ, straightway instead of fighting they turn to husbandry, and instead of arming their hands with weapons they raise them in prayer, and in a word, in place of fighting among theselves henceforth they arm against the devil and against evil spirits, subduing these by self-restrains and virtue of soul. Now this is at once a proof of the divinity of the Saviour, since what men could not learn among idols they have learned from him.†– Athanasius of Alexandria (296-373 AD), On the Incarnation of the Word 52.2-4

 

[rwbovee]

John the Baptist told the soldiers of his day to do violence to no man.

 

[jasoncran]

John the Baptist told the soldiers of his day to do violence to no man.

i'll reasearch the time of the roman occupation and clarify something on that, as roman soldiers were know th be cruel, they also did law enforcement, which in america is not legal, unless the army,army reservists fall under state control, along with the national guard, commitus posse act of 1836 is that law on that, so they may have another interpratation to it.

 

[Drew]

So, you're saying that the Bible isn't inerrant? ugh :nag

No I am not saying this at all. It would clearly incorrect to assume that all statements from all persons in the Bible represent truth. Do you think these statements, taken from the Bible are true

For there is hope for a tree,
When it is cut down, that it will sprout again,
And its shoots will not fail.
8"Though its roots grow old in the ground
And its stump dies in the dry soil,
9At the scent of water it will flourish
And put forth sprigs like a plant.
10"But (J)man dies and lies prostrate
Man (K)expires, and where is he?
11"As (L)water evaporates from the sea,
And a river becomes parched and dried up,
12So (M)man lies down and does not rise.

Clearly the thinking of Job here is incorrect. Man does have hope. Man does rise.

So one cannot simply assume that all statements in the Bible represent truth.

 

[Drew]

Are there times for war? Paul tells us that the government bears the sword as a minister of God.

I do not think this statement by Paul is not to be read as legitimizing Christian participation in, or endorsement of, war.

Paul is making an argument that we should obey governments - bad governments are better than anarchy.

One needs to remember the Old Testament (and the New). God "uses" the armed might of the Babylonians to bring judgement to Israel. But then God judges Bablyon for her violent ways. God also uses the agency of Rome to inflict devastating judgement on Israel (70 AD).

The fact that God weaves the human inclination to violence into His plans does not mean that we should embrace the path of armed violence.

 

[handy]

There is nothing in Scripture that indicates that Christians must be pacifists. Nowhere is being a soldier equated to doing something sinful or shameful. Jesus praised the faith of the centurion. David was a man after God's own heart. In the "lists" of those who engage of sinful behaviors, such as drunkeness, adultery, idol worship, and homosexuality, being a soldier is not mentioned.

I believe that this is an area in which one must follow the convictions of the Holy Spirit. For you, to be a soldier would be a bad thing. But, not for all, certainly not for all.

 

[Drew]

In the "lists" of those who engage of sinful behaviors, such as drunkeness, adultery, idol worship, and homosexuality, being a soldier is not mentioned.

I am not sure that this is all that strong an argument. I am sure that there are many things that do not appear in such "lists" that Christians should still steer clear of.

Consider this interaction between Jesus and Pilate shortly before the crucifixion:

Pilate then went back inside the palace, summoned Jesus and asked him, "Are you the king of the Jews?"
34"Is that your own idea," Jesus asked, "or did others talk to you about me?"
35"Am I a Jew?" Pilate replied. "It was your people and your chief priests who handed you over to me. What is it you have done?"
36Jesus said, "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."
37"You are a king, then!" said Pilate.
Jesus answered, "You are right in saying I am a king. In fact, for this reason I was born, and for this I came into the world, to testify to the truth. Everyone on the side of truth listens to me."

Now for the point more immediately relevant to the general issue of the use of force. Jesus points to the fact that his supporters are not fighting as evidence of the claim that His kingdom is from another place. Two things are clear. First, “fightingâ€Â, the use of force, is not a kingdom value. Second, Jesus’ supporters realize that His kingship is already in force – and they enact this by not fighting. Unlike many in this thread, the disciples understand that the kingdom value of shunning the use of force is for the present.

Note the alternative that Jesus gives us. When Peter used the sword to cut off the guard’s ear, Jesus rebuked him and then demonstrated the kind of power the Kingdom of God uses to advance its cause by healing the guards ear.

 

[handy]

But we do need to keep in mind that it was Jesus who, within hours of this episode, told the disciples to buy a sword, selling their cloak if necessary to be able to do so.

I don't believe that there have not been soldiers, sailors, Marines, and airmen, who have not done both, doing the work of God's kingdom even while wearing the uniform of their nation and providing military service. My Dad fought in the Korean War and even while on active duty still made the work of the Kingdom of God a priorty by helping those orphaned by the war, witnessing to fellow shipmates, the Japanese, and South Koreans, and ministering to those who were wounded in battle. At no time during the war did he lose sight that there were still eternal issues to be attended to.

 

[Drew]

But we do need to keep in mind that it was Jesus who, within hours of this episode, told the disciples to buy a sword, selling their cloak if necessary to be able to do so.

Indeed, but this instruction does not, I suggest, mean what you seem to think it means.

The following text, from Luke 22, is often used to support the right to wage war:

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.
37"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." 38They said, "Lord, look, here are two swords." And He said to them, "It is enough."

Obviously a “superficial†reading suggests that Jesus is advocating the “right†to use a weapon. However, the fact that such a reading is deeply at odds with other things Jesus teaches should be a tip-off that things are not as they appear. And indeed, such is the case here. When this text is understood in broader context, we realize that Jesus is not making any kind of a case for the right to bear arms (swords or otherwise).

In order to arrive at the correct interpretation, we really need to step back and ask ourselves what Jesus’ larger purpose was in this dialogue. Note the connective “for†at the beginning of verse 37. It suggests that the material which follows is an explanation or amplification on the point just made – that the followers of Jesus are to sell their coats and buy a sword. So what is Jesus’ larger purpose?

It is that He been seen as a transgressor. Jesus is intentionally orchestrating things so that the Jewish authorities will have plausible grounds for arresting Him. Of course, appearing as part of an armed band would be precisely the ideal scenario to ensure Jesus’ arrest. Remember the “for†at the beginning of verse 37. If we are to be careful students of what Jesus is saying, we need to take seriously what Jesus says in verses 37 and 38 as qualifying and explaining his statement about buying a sword. We cannot simply gloss the text and conclude “Look, Jesus is making some kind of general statement about the right to self-defence with weaponsâ€Â.

Remember the incident in the temple with Jesus overthrowing the tables of the moneychangers. This is not, as many people think, merely a repudiation of the sin of materialism. It is also a shrewd provocation on the part of Jesus. By creating a ruckus in the temple, He is forcing the hand of the Jewish leaders – they cannot allow such behaviour, Jesus must be arrested soon.

This is why, in the next verse, when the disciples say they have two swords, Jesus says “It is enough.†Obviously, if Jesus ever intended for the disciples to use the swords, two swords would not be nearly enough in any kind of armed action. But it’s enough to fulfill the prophecy by making Jesus appear to be participating in a violent revolutionary movement of some kind.

Unlike the “Jesus is supporting the right to use weaponry†interpretation, note how the above interpretation makes sense of the entire account. If Jesus was really making some general statement about a “right to use weaponsâ€Â, how exactly does that contribute to His being numbered with transgressors? And how does that make sense of the limit of two swords? Such an interpretation makes sense of neither. So it is almost certainly an incorrect interpretation of Jesus’ statement about buying a couple of swords.

 

[handy]

Very good.

I would like to share my thoughts on the "But now".. as in "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."

Stepping back a few verses we read this:

35Then Jesus asked them, "When I sent you without purse, bag or sandals, did you lack anything?"
"Nothing," they answered.

36He said to them, "But now if you have a purse, take it, and also a bag; and if you don't have a sword, sell your cloak and buy one. 37It is written: 'And he was numbered with the transgressors'; and I tell you that this must be fulfilled in me. Yes, what is written about me is reaching its fulfillment."

38The disciples said, "See, Lord, here are two swords."
"That is enough," he replied.

To me the "But now..." shows that there is a big change happening. And yes, while the battle that Jesus was sending the disciples out to was not of flesh and blood, He nonetheless signified that He was sending them out into the world and they would have need of purse, bag and sword. Before, when He sent the disciples out, they're needs were taken care of in a somewhat supernatural way, and this included protection. Jesus is indicating that this kind of supernatural protection wasn't always going to be there, and the disciples would have to take along a certain amount of provisions.

There just isn't anyplace where Jesus in any way condemned being a soldier, or indicated that one cannot be a soldier and partake in the work of God's kingdom at that same time.

 

[jeremiahj13]

I'm the biggest whimp/pacifict there is! Not of choice, but because I'm scared and I was raised in a spoiled environment.

Ive been trying to toughen up however. I am having a bit of luck, but it is quite hard. I do not believe Christians should be pacifists. In Israel's early days, God commanded the Israelites to kill women and children of a pagan nation they were to over take.

Christians I believe should not love violence, but willing to use it when our Heritage, cultrue, and religion is in danger.

 

[Drew]

He nonetheless signified that He was sending them out into the world and they would have need of purse, bag and sword.

You are not engaging the content of my argument. What you say here would be a possible interpretation if you stopped reading after Jesus mentions the suggestion to buy a sword. But, if you take seriously the explanation that follows - about how Jesus must be seen as a transgressor, it becomes clear exactly why Jesus instructs them to buy a sword - Jesus is intentionally orchestrating things so that the Jewish authorities will have plausible grounds for arresting Him.

I appreciate the intent of your argument - by stepping back a verse or two you see Jesus as initiating a treatment of the provisions his followers will need as they go out into the broader world. The problem is that such an interpretation makes no sense of the limit of two swords. If the issue were really that Jesus is outfitting his disciples with provisions, including swords, then clearly there is no sense in setting a limit of two - presumably each person should have a sword.

Your explanation also does not make sense of the connection to being numbered with transgressors. Jesus follows his instructions to buy a sword with the rather clear impliciation that the intent of buying the sword is not self-defence, but so that the group of them will be seen to be transgressors - armed trouble makers. AndJesus concludes that two swords are suffifcient to achieve this effect.

If Jesus is really simply "provisioning" his followers to be able to survive in the broader world, He gives a very strange follow on explanation - that the group of them are to be seen as transgressors. That makes no sense in such a context. Would you suggest provisions for people "so that they will be seen as transgressors?

The more likely explanation is that Jesus is telling them to get a sword for precisely the reason he immediately gives - that they will been as transgressors.

 

[Drew]

God commanded the Israelites to kill women and children of a pagan nation they were to over take.

He also commanded them to stone adulterers and sacrifice animals in the temple. Do you think that we are called to do those things as well?

 

[handy]

You are not engaging the content of my argument. What you say here would be a possible interpretation if you stopped reading after Jesus mentions the suggestion to buy a sword. But, if you take seriously the explanation that follows - about how Jesus must be seen as a transgressor, it becomes clear exactly why Jesus instructs them to buy a sword - Jesus is intentionally orchestrating things so that the Jewish authorities will have plausible grounds for arresting Him.

They already had their grounds to arrest Him. Judas has already betrayed Christ by then.

Your explanation also does not make sense of the connection to being numbered with transgressors. Jesus follows his instructions to buy a sword with the rather clear impliciation that the intent of buying the sword is not self-defence, but so that the group of them will be seen to be transgressors - armed trouble makers. AndJesus concludes that two swords are suffifcient to achieve this effect.

If Jesus is really simply "provisioning" his followers to be able to survive in the broader world, He gives a very strange follow on explanation - that the group of them are to be seen as transgressors. That makes no sense in such a context. Would you suggest provisions for people "so that they will be seen as transgressors?

The more likely explanation is that Jesus is telling them to get a sword for precisely the reason he immediately gives - that they will been as transgressors.

I don't believe that Jesus was setting the disciples up to be seen as transgressors here. When He said:

37It is written: 'And he was numbered with the transgressors'; and I tell you that this must be fulfilled in me. Yes, what is written about me is reaching its fulfillment."
He was speaking solely of Himself. And, in His death upon the cross, and by His taking the sin of the world upon Himself, He was indeed numbered with the transgressors.

 

[Drew]

They already had their grounds to arrest Him. Judas has already betrayed Christ by then.

I should have not given the impression that to be seen as an armed revolutionary was the only basis for the arrest of Jesus, but it is part of it. When Judas goes the priests, the priests need some motivation, some reason to want to arrest Jesus in the first place. Judas is the means, of course, but the priests do not arrest Jesus simply because Judas wants money. There has to be a credible reason to explain their desire to arrest Jesus. And, of course, if He appears to be an armed revolutionary, that powerfully adds to other reasons they had to want his arrest. And there were others of course. I am not suggesting otherwise.

I don't believe that Jesus was setting the disciples up to be seen as transgressors here. When He said:

37It is written: 'And he was numbered with the transgressors'; and I tell you that this must be fulfilled in me. Yes, what is written about me is reaching its fulfillment."

He was speaking solely of Himself. And, in His death upon the cross, and by His taking the sin of the world upon Himself, He was indeed numbered with the transgressors.

This does not really work. Jesus wants to be part of armed group. It is really only an armed group that will be seen as a threat. A single "deranged" (from the perpective of the priests) Messiah with a sword is nothing to worry about. But if Jesus is part of a group of people with swords, this shows that His subversive movement has gathered followers and needs to be stopped.

Let's be clear here: Jesus specifically explains his instruction to buy a sword as being related to the fulfillment of a prophecy that Jesus be seen as a transgressor. This, alone, shows that Jesus is not making some of general endorsement of the Christian to use weapons.