| Home | Our Hope | |
| Bible Study |
|
January 5, 2020 |
| Pacifism And The Christian | ||
More than 10 years ago I started this study but it never got past the title. Pacifism is a very rare idea in the church and there isn't much interest in it. Most Christians take it as obvious that they are free to serve as police or military and they protect themselves and their homes. "Some religious groups, such as the Quakers, Mennonites, and the Amish, make pacifism an integral part of their doctrine."1
The Bible doesn't speak of Pacifism or any philosophy like it in any way. The topic was certainly not on their radar any more than it is on ours now.
That isn't to say the Bible has nothing to say about some applications of Pacifism such as self-defense and serving in the military. That's what we'll look for here.
After giving the Ten Commandments, God continues on with application examples for them. This one relates to killing a thief caught in the act of breaking into a home.
If the thief is caught while breaking in and is struck so that he dies, there will be no bloodguiltiness on his account. 3 But if the sun has risen on him, there will be bloodguiltiness on his account. (Exodus 22:2-3)
The message here seems to be that, when you can see the thief, it would be wrong to kill him. In the dark, however, it is not. The difference seems to be 'intent'. In the dark the target is unclear and the blows land where they may, without intent to kill. In the light, if blows are necessary at all, they don't need to be killing blows.
This ties back to the 6th commandment, which really means you should not devalue anyone like that. That commandment takes us back to the theme for the last 5 commandments, "love your neighbor as yourself."
Notice though that this love is not a love where you love your neighbor more than yourself and thereby devalue yourself.
This is a pretty clear example that self defense and home defense are without blame when done in the right spirit.
At the Passover meal on the day that Jesus will be crucified, we discover that some of Jesus' disciples have been 'packing heat'. This is the first mention of it so we don't know how long they have been carrying.
He said to them, "From this hour, whoever has a money bag should take it and thus also a wallet, and whoever lacks a sword, let him sell his tunic and buy a sword for himself. 37 For this also that is written must be fulfilled in me, 'He was numbered with the evil doers', for all that concerns me shall be fulfilled." 38 And they were saying to him, 'Our Lord, behold, here are two swords.' He said to them, 'They are enough.' (Luke 22:36-38)
Jesus' disciples have misunderstood his message. Jesus is speaking in metaphor. He doesn't literally mean that every disciple, including ourselves, should be armed with a sword. His message is that things are about to change. Where they were previously able to go out without a money bag or a wallet and expect to be received, that time is over. From now on, he means, times will be difficult. It will be brother against brother, and so on.
For our purposes now, it doesn't matter if they understood or not. When Jesus says this they are quick to bring out the swords that they have. There is no sign of apprehension - that they expect him to be unhappy with them for having them. In reality, they are showing him the swords to show that they are already doing what he asked.
There is also no sign of guilt on there part, that they were carrying them when they were told not to. Jesus would have known if they had they swords when he didn't want them to.
His response is not negative toward them, though there might be a hint of sadness that they do not understand what he is saying.
There is another truth here. Jesus' words here have the purpose of preparing his disciples, especially Peter, to use a sword when the soldiers come for Jesus, so that prophecy would be fulfilled. Also consider that the prophecy came from Jesus, who is God.
There is absolutely no hint that Jesus had a problem with his disciples carrying weapons.
Jesus does give a warning about weapons.
And behold, one of those who were with Yeshua reached his hand and drew his sword and struck the servant of the High Priest and cut off his ear. 52 Then Yeshua said to him, "Return the sword to its place, for all of those who take up swords will die by swords. (Matthew 26:51-52)
Jesus' words have been codified into the phrase "those who live by the sword will die by the sword." That has generally been interpreted as meaning "those who base their lives on the protection of the sword will die by the sword." There is a problem with that though - it isn't what the verse says.
Almost every translation says what is shown above. Therefore a different interpretation is possible.
Revelation has a similar verse.
Whoever leads into captivity goes into captivity and those who murder with the sword will be killed with the sword. Here is faith and the endurance of the Holy Ones. (Revelation 13:10)
In the context of this verse it is clear that the message is "what is happening will happen and if you fight against it, you will be destroyed." This is also likely the message here in Matthew as well.
Whatever the interpretation, there is nothing in it that speaks against self-defense or home defense.
Nowhere does the Bible denounce military service. In fact God calls for counts of the Israelite men who are able to fight and he orders them into battle. David, a prophet, writes glowing praises for the best of his warriors.
God does limit David because of his warrior past - David cannot be the person to build a temple to God. That is a job for a man of peace.
What can we make of that though? Was David a lesser person in God's eyes because of his past? That would be very hard to support. God blessed David in many ways, said many kind things about him, and made him the center of Messianic prophecy.
I think all we can make of that limitation is that it is about appropriateness. Just as it was not appropriate for people to enter the temple under various circumstances and at various times due to their condition or uncleanness, it was not appropriate for David to build the temple.
When God instructed the count of the Israelite warriors be taken, he excluded the Levites, which includes the Priests. Therefore, I think the warrior rule could be reasonably applied, in our time, to top positions of a church. We do not see such a restriction, though, when Paul is describing the characteristics required for the leadership positions of a church.
The New Testament contains only one reference to military service. Soldiers ask John the Baptist how they should live. His response has nothing to do with getting out of the service. Instead he instructs them in just treatment and not abusing their authority.
Though some people want to see military service as somehow different from police service or home protection, there is no justification for that view. The differences are only in scale and who is the enemy / offender. The purpose they have in common is the protection of people from an aggressor.
There is a distinction that is worth mentioning. An army of conquest would not be acceptable to God. Habbakuk addresses this with the army of conquest that will attack Israel. The problem with this distinction is that Pacifists dishonestly choose to interpret things that are not conquest as though they were.
Those people within the church who subscribe to Pacifism see it as implicit in the Bible, coming from the basic tenets, such as love for one's fellow man, though not explicitly mentioned. They also interpret Jesus to be a Pacifist and from that derive a call to Pacifism from the command to be like him.
There are many things that Jesus did that we are not called to do. We are not called to walk on water. We are not all called to be itinerant preachers. We are not all called to literally die on a cross. We are not all called to fulfill prophecy. We are not called to wear the same clothing he wore. It is therefore impossible to say that Pacifism is our model. This is also shown to be false because Jesus did not require Pacifism of his disciples as discussed above.
It is also factually wrong to call Jesus a pacifist. He is the Son of God and as such slew many people and will do so again when he returns.