Can a Christian be a Pacifist?

[dwilkins]

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.

If you start with John 6 you see that Jesus promises not to lose one of them. In John 17 he says that he has succeeded by not losing one of them. In John 18 he asks the crowd to let the Disciples go so that it will be fulfilled that he did not lose one of them. This seems pretty clear to me that he is interested in their physical safety.

Doug

[john6809]

If you start with John 6 you see that Jesus promises not to lose one of them. In John 17 he says that he has succeeded by not losing one of them. In John 18 he asks the crowd to let the Disciples go so that it will be fulfilled that he did not lose one of them. This seems pretty clear to me that he is interested in their physical safety.

Doug, I see your point. However, I am going to outline as briefly as possible, why I am unconvinced that Jesus' primary concern is for the disciples' physical safety.

1 - Jesus has, on several occasions, told the disciples that they were not to be concerned about the body, but rather, with the kingdom of God. Matthew 10:28, Matthew 6:24-34, and Matthew 16:25 are a few examples. Why would He now concern Himself with their ability to defend their physical lives?

2 - When I look at John 6 and compare it to John 17, I see the following:
- John 6:39 - God's will is that Jesus lose none whom the Father has given Him.
- John 17:12 - Jesus claims that He has indeed not lost any of those God gave Him, except for Judas. (This indicates that the first group of people are specifically the twelve).
- John 6:40 - God's will is that EVERYONE who believes in Him should have eternal life.
- John 17:20 - Jesus prays for EVERYONE who believes in Him through their (the disciples) word.

In other words, Jesus concerns Himself with two groups of people: the twelve disciples that God gave Him and those that would be saved through the disciples' words.

With that in mind, in John 6:39 & 40, Jesus indicates that both of these groups would be "...raised up in the last day." In what sense would they be raised up? If the last day referred to the day of His arrest, how could those who believed through the disciples' words be raised up, since the last day would have already passed?

3 - In John 17:11, Jesus is passing on the "job" of keeping the disciples to God. When He prays that God would keep them, He states a purpose: that they (the disciples) might be one, even as Jesus and the Father are one, not that their physical safety would be secure. In John 17:21, in His prayer for the second group of believers, His purpose is the same: that they all might be one, even as He and the Father are one. If this second group includes all believers up until our current time, obviously God's will has not been accomplished because many Christians have not been 'kept' physically safe.

It also seems to me, that a sense of oneness is not reliant upon physical protection, but rather, spiritual protection. Also, if we believe that Jesus only prayed the will of the Father, and Jesus prayed that God would keep them now that Jesus was returning to the Father, why would He advise them to buy swords to protect themselves? God ought to be just as proficient at sparing them physically as Jesus was.

This all brings us back to the question, "Why would Jesus request that the disciples not be arrested with Him in order that they might be "kept" as He said they would?" I haven't got a concrete answer but I would like to posit a theory.

We know that the disciples did not have a good grasp of the concept of how Jesus would usher in the kingdom. They still expected that His kingdom would be a physical one in which He would be King. They expected to be freed from the tyranny of Rome. We know that Jesus knew Peter would betray Him. We know that Thomas had lost faith to the degree that he would not believe Jesus was risen from the dead until he actually saw Jesus with his own eyes.

We also know that the reason given for them to 'tarry one hour' in the Garden of Gethsemane was to avoid temptation. (Matt 26:40 & 41). What temptation? Is it possible that one or more of the disciples would have been 'lost' if they had to endure what Jesus endured in the course of His trial and crucifixion? If Peter denied Christ even though he was watching from the back row (so to speak), is it possible that he would have gone to his death on the cross with doubt in his heart? If Thomas had to endure the cross, and he had lost faith, would he have been 'lost' or 'kept'? Like I said, I am not sold out to this theory, but I see it as plausible. I am open to having my mind changed.

This brings us back to the purpose of the swords. In Luke 22, verse 36 & 37 are tied together by the word, "For". It seems as though the purpose for gathering sacks, money, sandals, and swords was for the purpose of fulfilling the prophecy quoted in verse 37. The problem I have in this verse is that the original prophecy was that He would be numbered with the transgressors. I have always understood that to refer to the fact that He was crucified between two criminals. Yet, the two verses, read naturally, seem to indicate that the disciples' preparations (including swords) were necessary for the fulfillment to take place. Anybody have any ideas??

Further, when Peter does use the sword, Jesus reminds him that His destiny was to submit to arrest and crucifixion. If Jesus could have called down twelve legions of angels, and yet He chose not to, who was Peter to attempt to prevent Jesus fulfilling His purpose? So, if Jesus didn't allow Peter to use his sword in the midst of the most dire situation they could face, why would He encourage it's use later?

[dwilkins]

1. It's clear that Jesus both told them to be careless with their lives but also takes dramatic steps to save their lives. This seems like a contradiction, but I think really comes down to an argument of what's appropriate in a given time and place. There is a reason he relocated his ministry several times and covertly went to the Feast of Tabernacles. It was to provide a measure of physical safety because the Jews were trying to kill him. In my opinion, part of his goal of that was to make sure that this embryonic kernel of leadership would survive until Pentecost, immediately after which they'd start being spent physically. A major theme in Jesus' ministry was training the first generation of leadership, and it was important that they all lived until their mission as leaders of the church began. After that, they could die and it wouldn't jeopardize the mission to found the church. This is part of the point of the narrative that I keep trying to emphasize. There is an ongoing story and strategy behind what was going on that we tend to miss because we turn each line of text into a theological statement instead of a part of an evolving story.

2. "With that in mind, in John 6:39 & 40, Jesus indicates that both of these groups would be "...raised up in the last day." In what sense would they be raised up? If the last day referred to the day of His arrest, how could those who believed through the disciples' words be raised up, since the last day would have already passed?"

I don't think the last day has anything at all to do with the day of the arrest or the day at which he was claiming to have succeeded in protecting his Disciples. The last day resurrection has to do with the eschatological resurrection of Daniel 12, 1st Cor. 15, and 1st Thess. 4. One of the reasons I am guessing that this is in your mind is that Reformed or Evangelical soteriology tends to tie "not losing one" to salvation security, the crisis moment of which would be the resurrection. I'd argue that these are two different things.

3. I agree that Jesus makes a transition in John 17 away from keeping them safe. That is my primary point. It is at this point in the adventure that he stops trying to keep them safe and, after his martyrdom, puts them in situations where they will all be martyred as well. I can appreciate your point about the possession of swords making them the transgressors because I used CT based translations such as the NIV for years and that verse was left out (though sometimes with a footnote that I never noticed). The NASB has it, so I am a bit without excuse. But, I took it the way you are suggesting for a long time. Then, I noticed the inconvenient wording of the NKJV which says explicitly that the fulfillment came from being between the thieves. In other words, scripture tells you when it was fulfilled. You don't have to guess.

Again, I think Jesus' point to Peter was nothing more than to say that if you try to save your life with a sword right now you'll be killed by this mob. That's one of the reasons he steps in to end the fight and fixes the servant's ear. We tend to turn this into a grand statement of theology because we are not reading the events as an ongoing story, but instead a bunch of numbered verses that happen in order. We have no information on when it would have been appropriate to use to use the sword, but it must have been appropriate for him to have one on him because Jesus told him to do so. Maybe the point was that simply possessing one would keep him (or the others he was with) from being assaulted. Maybe the point was he would actually use it on someone later one. Who knows? The scripture doesn't say, so I don't have a particular opinion on that. What I do know is that Jesus told them to sell their extra coats and buys swords for a reason, so I conclude that absolute pacifism won't work.

Doug

[john6809]

Hi Doug,
Time is short since I am on break at work. If I sound abrupt, this is why.

It's clear that Jesus both told them to be careless with their lives but also takes dramatic steps to save their lives. This seems like a contradiction, but I think really comes down to an argument of what's appropriate in a given time and place. There is a reason he relocated his ministry several times and covertly went to the Feast of Tabernacles. It was to provide a measure of physical safety because the Jews were trying to kill him.

True. Jesus seemed keenly aware of the timetable of His own ministry. The disciples' safety was assured because of this. Jesus is never seen to violently fight the crowds when they sought to kill Him. Instead, He just walked through their midst. It seems as though He sought the peacemaker role in removing Himself and the disciples from dangerous situations.

I don't think the last day has anything at all to do with the day of the arrest or the day at which he was claiming to have succeeded in protecting his Disciples. The last day resurrection has to do with the eschatological resurrection of Daniel 12, 1st Cor. 15, and 1st Thess. 4.

I am not a once-saved-always-saved believer. I also agree that "last day" could refer to eschatologoical resurection. Why then, does He say, "This is the will of the Father who sent Me, that of all He has given Me I should lose nothing, but should raise it up at the last day." His success at losing nothing given to Him would result in them being raised up in the last day.

I agree that Jesus makes a transition in John 17 away from keeping them safe.

I don't think Jesus is transitioning away from protecting them so much as He is turning their protection over to His Father. This sounds very reminiscent of 1 Cor 15 where Paul describes Jesus as gathering all things under His feet and when this is complete, He gives it to His Father that He may be all in all. Further evidence that Jesus was concerned with their spiritual well-being is found in Luke, b/t the last supper and the garden of Gethsemane. He tells Peter that Satan has desired him, to sift him like wheat. But, Jesus says, I have prayed for you that you might not lose faith. He goes on to say, "When you return to me..." We also find that He told all of His disciples that He would be the cause of stumbling for them on that night. They all deny it vehemently.

I can appreciate your point about the possession of swords making them the transgressors because I used CT based translations such as the NIV for years and that verse was left out (though sometimes with a footnote that I never noticed).

I am convinced (and always have been) that His death b/t the two criminals is the fulfillment of the prophecy, I am just uncertain as to why they should have provisioned themselves with all that Jesus described in order for these things to take place.

We tend to turn this into a grand statement of theology because we are not reading the events as an ongoing story, but instead a bunch of numbered verses that happen in order.

I try not read it as a bunch of proof texts. I have a more difficult time with the timing of the pieces of the ongoing narrative.

What I do know is that Jesus told them to sell their extra coats and buys swords for a reason, so I conclude that absolute pacifism won't work.

Jesus did tell them to sell their garments to buy swords - I make no argument there. It sounds to me like He wanted every disciple who didn't have a sword, to aquire one. Then we find He is satisfied with two. I don't get this. But I don't see the warning to buy swords as an approval for violence against their enemies. I agree that absolute pacifism might not work 100 % of the time for 100 % of the people but, like Matt and Steve, I would regret ever having to resort to violence, even as a last resort. This would make it difficult to put myself in a position where I would likely be required to resort to violence.

[dwilkins]

John,

Regarding this comment,

"I am not a once-saved-always-saved believer. I also agree that "last day" could refer to eschatologoical resurection. Why then, does He say, "This is the will of the Father who sent Me, that of all He has given Me I should lose nothing, but should raise it up at the last day." His success at losing nothing given to Him would result in them being raised up in the last day."

In my opinion, all this passage is trying to say is that the people that were given to Christ (the Disciples) would eventually be rewarded with resurrection. I don't see why it has to say that just because none of them were lost they were going to receive resurrection. The same promise is made back in John 6 to everyone that would eventually come to Christ.

Doug

[Homer]

Back to the self defense angle, could a person tell a lie to defend against harm? Let's say a woman is about to be raped and she tells her attacker that she has AIDS when she does not. My understanding of Christian ethics is that her lie (lying is normally sin) is not sin because the man in this case is not entitled to the truth. If this is so, then could she shoot the man or stab him, which is normally sin, because in the act of an attack on her he is not entitled to safety?

Going further, I think we would all agree that if a policeman came upon the scene he would be authorized by God to shoot the man. If so, why couldn't she? The authorization for violent defense is given to the police; is it somewhere forbidden to the woman, in context, in the scriptures, i.e. is the situation anywhere addressed?

[jriccitelli]

All this seems to be from two different interpretations of the word ‘love’.
And the combination of both different interpretations of the words; ‘love’ and ‘enemies’.
Matt told me that ‘the difference between enemies and perpetrators was semantics’.
I say; if I love someone, they are no longer my enemy.
I say; if I love someone, that does not allow them to attack or injure another person.

Nor does love mean – not stopping a violent attack on someone.
I say love means protecting the peaceful, and not allowing someone to abuse another.
I say it is unloving to let someone abuse another, and stop short if it means you might have to kill the perpetrator.

I also say Jesus did not teach a pacifism that leaves out the 'protection' of each other and society, nor did Jesus make it unChristian to capture and incarcerate criminals, which is logically impossible 'without' the sword (Note; the sword of truth was not meant to be turned on Christians. In other words I have not been shown where Jesus said or implied; you must die when a person attacks you, if it means you ‘might’ kill them)
(Trying to invoke creative ways of stopping this situation ‘quickly’ evaporate when a perpetrator will ‘not stop’ advancing. The perpetrator makes the choice when they refuse to stop. Although I suggest you can always be in prayer while you keep your finger on the trigger)

[jriccitelli]

To explain why the disciples didn’t fight when Jesus was arrested (or 'shouldn’t' have tried to fight);

1. If they put up a real fight they may have all died, including Jesus, in the Garden. This is not what Jesus wanted, He wasn’t even pronounced guilty by the court yet. Jesus would die, but he wanted them to live and tell about it. I noted earlier that bad guys will generally allow you to pass if they think you are ‘capable’ of putting up a fight, nothing says you have to.

2. This was not a self-defense situation, or an attack. They came to make an arrest, they were not robbers – they were soldiers and they were the authorities. They were only taking him to court and to trial, this is the situation to which we also have to obey (generally speaking) the soldiers did not start a senseless beating in the garden (they were under authority) this is what civil (generally) authorities are put in place to do. If everyone votes to have you put to death, well that is what we have to submit to. This is not an instance outside the law for them, the courts were abit corrupt and bent but this was not an instance of someone assaulting or attacking a victim. If anyone assaulted, it was Peter. The authorities were holding to the law, at this point. (It was ‘the people’ who later voted to have a killer live, and Jesus put to death)

(You see the disciples were Mennonites at first; they became Lutherans once the persecution started)

3. Before Jesus’ arrest, they seemed generally safe among ‘the people’ (although the Pharisees were trying to kill Jesus). And when He had sent them out (before) Jesus instilled in them a sense of Gods provision, and a sense of leaving the world and things behind. But this does not mean; that when they were told to ‘take back up their simple belongings’ their dinner knife ‘became’ more important than a coat, or that a hunting knife was going to be of more importance than ‘it was before’.

4. They were not instructed to ‘defend the faith’ with swords (or ‘defend Jesus’, or defend 'their' faith with swords). Nor were the Disciples instructed to start a religious war. This is not the same as, nor were they instructed to 'not' defend themselves, and others from needless attacks and overt abuse. All this is a misrepresentation of the instructions to not repay evil for evil and turn the other cheek. Neither of which is an instruction to allow evil a free pass, and give up a defense.

5. The Christian ethic and philanthropy that comes from verses like ‘do not return evil for evil” seems clear as it plays out in everyday life and history, real Christians have displayed incredible tolerance towards abuse, not returning anger for anger, showing kindness towards criminals, crooks, etc., I’m talking about soldiers and police officers. We see the Christian ideal presented in many places of police function, note that most soldiers when they liberate a town are kind and supportive of the reclaimed city’s and villages people. Police take in crooks and are generally fair kind and accommodating to them, as long as they cooperate. This was not normal before Christian ethics sank in, and in contrast; many non-Christian people (or nations) continue to purposely abuse prisoners.

Concerning military occupation, and everything post Constantine, post Crusades, Augustine, Aquinas, Hobbes, Enlightenment, Monarchy, post chivalry, and post Geneva Convention, etc., the ‘theories’ of just war are still highly debatable, but that is not what I focused my question on. I am trying to avoid that direction because this is a 'bible' forum…

[jriccitelli]

1. You can’t say that a person is not living by ‘Kingdom’ principles when it may be that they need to use deadly force to stop a crime.
2. Nor can you suggest a Christian should not be a soldier or a police officer. (From first post, page one)

'If' 1 is wrong - then 2 is wrong.
The motive and principles of each police/military force will always be a matter of relativism, policy, politics and whatever, and this calls for discretion. But is it wrong to join ‘only’ because you believe premise 1 is wrong?

[steve]

I’m talking about soldiers and police officers.

Yes, you are. But this is not relevant to the question why Jesus told the disciples to buy swords. They were not police officers. The instructions to them on this point, then, are not relevant to the separate question of police action.