A tentative biblico-theological thesis about pacifism
I think I’m the only one who would agree with the following, but, really, I’m just writing this to keep a record of it and see what kind of reaction it gets. So here goes nothing.
For a while I’ve been what I call a “tentative pacifist”, in that I think it’s the best of the options about social ethics as a model of what Scripture says, though I still have my questions in some areas. One of those areas is about the way in which this ethic would relate to the OT. For many Christian pacifists the answer has essentially been to write off the Old Testament as not authoritative, but with a high view of inspiration I don’t see that as an option.
A few different strands of biblical theology have presented themselves to me as a possible option for reconciling pacifism with the OT. They are essentially this:
- The Bible presents the age of the OT as an age ruled by angels, or as the NT calls it, powers/elements/principalities; notably, in Galatians, Paul says that Israel under the Old Covenant was under these powers in being under the law (which should make clear that the powers are not inherently evil)
- The Bible also presents violence as acceptable for the people of God in the OT (and even commands it on some occasions)
- In the NT, the church is said to no longer be under the elementary principles/powers, but rather fighting/working against them to get them to submit to Christ the King
Perhaps the answer for the move from non-pacifism to pacifism is found in this change: in the OT, the people of God were under the powers, and thus rightly used the methods of the powers, which included violence. They were not at war with the powers, but totally under them; at most, they made war with human instruments of other powers. But now that the church is itself in conflict with the powers, it no longer makes sense to use their methods; rather, cosmic and carnal powers must be overcome with divine power.
Again, I’m sure this won’t convince anyone here, but I wanted to write it down before I forgot it! 
Hmm… a bit of a stretch.
In the OT we see the call to brutal violence as proceeding directly from the mouth of God Himself to His people. Where are the “powers” on these occasions? None but God. God and the Prophet and nothing between.
Interestingly, these commands seem to disagree with the Law you are talking about:
do not murder > kill the women and children
do not covet > go into a foreign land and take their possessions
Not only some contradiction, but He kicks it up a notch, no?
Now no one can overturn the Law – amend or excuse the Law – but the King. So in these scenarios, we get a glimpse in to the heart of God Himself and we do not find pacifism there, neither do we find it at the end of this current age of Grace. It ends with a bloodbath, the Kings robe stained crimson.
Well, you still need to reckon with the fact that Paul sees the law as something mediated by angels/the powers.
But further:
The nature of God’s commands could be considered as consistent with their being under the powers (which use violence, among other things, to control human beings), whereas now he no longer seems to give commands to call down fire on the Samaritans, but rather the opposite.
My point is not that God is always opposed to violence, but that he has given different commands to his people at different stages in history. This would also explain your point about Revelation (which, by the way, does not end in a bloodbath, but with a new heavens and a new earth, where there is no longer any death). Further, I think it is pretty dangerous to intimate that violence is at the heart of God; how would one reconcile that with God being love and His creation being a good, peaceful thing? It seems that violence is rather accidental, and peace essential to God, insofar as those distinctions apply to God analogically.
Yes, time does not “end” with violence, I simply meant that around the termination of history there will be one (though it may be symbolic language, which I tend to believe). Sorry for being unclear and hyperbolic
How do we reconcile God’s violence with His love and peace? Well, I’m not sure why there needs to be polarity between these two traits. If there is any primary attribute of God, it is that He is holy. This is why he can even visit judgement on a sinner at all, otherwise, love for the sinner would triumph.
His holiness is primary.
Violence cannot be accidental as it is evidenced by God – this would make his actions accidental. Take Amos as just one example. It is almost entirely about God expressing violence to all man kind, especially His children.
I think we might be starting with the presupposition, “Violence is bad,” and interpreting God through that or in spite of that. Instead, when we come to the Word as it is, we see that God exhibits violence, and does so because He desires to (He is self bound to be just, but not to be violent, thus, He elects to be when He could be otherwise). Let’s have what is evidenced in action dictate to us who God is.
“Hey JC. Was it really necessary to flip those tables and whip those money changers? Violence is wrong!”
He could have rebuked! His Word is the ultimate power, and yet, no words – action.
Violent action by God Incarnate.
FWIW…
He’d rather His disciples be cold, even naked, than to without means to defend and produce violence should it visit them… just food for thought.
Ben,
Andrew already said that his point wasn’t that violence was antithetical to God.
Right. I was asserting that God is not merely “accepting” of violence, but that some violence is actually found in God.
If violence isn’t antithetical to God, if He reveals Himself in violent manifestations and violent Prophecy, and if He explicitly commands His people to be violent, then:
1) violence reveals something about God’s character
2) violence is not inherently sinful
3) violence is not unequivocally forbidden
Ben:
I wouldn’t agree that there is violence “in” God, because this would imply that the relations between the persons of the Trinity were in some way violent, which is frankly blasphemous. However, I agree with your three points in the last post, though I don’t think any of them actually undercut my argument.
The story about the swords from the Gospel is best understood when Jesus’ reply is translated not “It is enough” but “Enough!” in a tone of exasperation at their inability to “get it”. He wanted them to fulfill the scripture which said Jesus would be found with criminals, and to do so they had to be carrying weapons.
“Violence cannot be accidental as it is evidenced by God – this would make his actions accidental.”
Violence has to be accidental, because God’s eternal inner-Trinitarian relations are non-violent; violence only happens in creation, which is contingent. Violence is a response of God to evil, which is also contingent; it is not an action God is eternally performing, as love is.
9volt battery/ac adapter (no drilling, no soldering, no fuss)
Mmm, I think you’re extending my words farther than I mean them to go. I’m simply saying:
- God is capable of violence
- God acts violently
- He is pleased to do so
This is somewhat contestable:
1) We very easily read this passage as a tying up lose ends before the Christ’s persecution – the passage is commenting on a great many things, giving a summary, and I do not think the best reading of this passage is to tie the two strains together in the way you are suggesting.
Why? Consider, Jesus is about to fulfill this prophesy by actually being numbered among the transgressors – those being brought trial (Barabas) and ultimately the two men He was crucified between (criminals in actuality).
This is what is meant. These are the Sinners referred to – the actual criminals He is associated with. Christ is speaking with a view of what is to come in no different a way than He speaks regarding Peter’s approaching apostasy.
I think the point gets strengthened when we just look at a practical issue: carrying a sword does not a criminal make. The disciples bearing of arms does not make them transgressors and this would leave the prophecy unfulfilled.
Belief that bearing arms is enough to render one a transgressor has hug implications for Christ here: if producing swords makes one transgressor, this makes Christ’s command to getswords a criminal act (we might call this being an accessory today) but not only that, it makes it an act of transgression – sin.
This cannot be. So, we fall back on are His words – get weaponry. They tell us something about the Man – about God.
Ok. I apologize for breezing past what you are getting at – I’m sorry.
Let’s throw this idea one around:
- Does temporality vs eternality enter the equation when determining whether a trait is in God? Is a trait less Godly if it is “less eternal”?
- Does God’s creating a Universe with Sin potential (with the foresight to realize it would reach that potential) reveal that God has traits that He desired to express that He couldn’t otherwise (namely, justice)?
* * * * *
I think if God is capable of demonstrating violence and being violence, we really need to think long and hard about how this can be when He could so easily not be. Justice does not demand violence. God can demonstrate justice in other ways with the same success and integrity – but at times He has chosen violence. Why? Why this choice? What does this say about Him?
“Why? Consider, Jesus is about to fulfill this prophesy by actually being numbered among the transgressors –”
Except that Jesus very clearly begins his explanation for why they are to bring a sword with “For”… so at bare minimum the apostles’ bringing of their swords will contribute to his being numbered among transgressors.
“I think the point gets strengthened when we just look at a practical issue: carrying a sword does not a criminal make. The disciples bearing of arms does not make them transgressors and this would leave the prophecy unfulfilled.”
But a band of armed men following around a would-be Messiah who had just recently done some politically provocative things in the most central power-symbol in all of Israel, would certainly give hints of possible criminal activity to those in power.
Regarding the other things: God’s wrath/violence reveals something about his character, but it is not something as essential to his character as love; his wrath is not an attribute of God, it is an action.
I think there is enough reason to think that God’s wrath is not as “equally deep” in God as his love; for example: Lam. 3:33: “For he does not willingly (lit. “from His heart”) afflict the sons of men.” Humans being condemned is not something God takes as much pleasure in as their being rewarded. What does that say about God?
And I should say: I think God’s willingness to use violence is one of the reasons that we can be pacifists. It is because God takes vengeance that we don’t need to.
I cannot say, “This is interpretation is incorrect.” You make a very reasonable point. I disagree and feel the strongest meaning is found when we actually see Christ being numbered with transgressors in the very apex of His ministry and calling. At that pivotal moment of Redemption, He is literally and visibly numbered with transgressors.
I feel this is stronger than positing that a band of men with swords could quite possibly be transgressors. They produce arms at Christ’s command, therefor making the act it self not sinful (lest Christ be an accessory to sin). They are so commanded with a view to their welfare, in the same way that carrying food and money contribute to one’s welfare (which is also mentioned in the text).
I absolutely and whole-heartedly agree with you.
Again, I fully agree! The Lord is abounding in mercy and slow to anger! Clearly He favours grace over judgement. In this there can be no debate.
What do we learn about God in this? We learn that “the greatest of these” (all possible actions and positions of the heart) is Love. That Love triumphs and conquers all. This was not anything I have ever contested. What I ask, again, is what do we learn about God in those moments where God wields a sword and that sword is eager to spill blood? And what do we learn when He, the Lord, calls His children, repeatedly, through direct command (with no apparent mention of or mediation by any power other than Himself) to bear arms and spill blood in kind?
“The LORD is a warrior; The LORD is His name.”
Valiant warriors are esteemed in the OT for their ability to kill, and not just by the writers, but by the Lord Himself. Skill in combat is valued and praised by the Lord. The Lord!
Men were required to enlist in military service to learn how to fight. This requirement was established by the Lord.
So the question is not merely, “What do these things tell us about God,” but rather, “what do these things tell us about God’s intentions for human conduct.”
Vengeance and violence are not the same thing:
“I am the Lord, I will repay” is in no way similar to, “We are a Nation, we will defend,” or, “We are a Nation, we will overthrow wickedness,” or, “I am a shepherd, I will drive out wolves,” or, “I am a husband, and I will protect.”
When the entirety of the Scriptures is considered – and when one deals plainly with the record of the Father’s commanding of His children – one could very well be deemed a reprobate for doing anything less than taking up a fight when the cause is just and the stakes are great.
Earnest prayers do not always deflect bullet and mortars, and the Lord has not called us be be naive in this.
* * * * *
Often the following passage is cited by the pacifist in order to strengthen his case:
It’s a great verse, but the pacifist takes it to be some sort of implied prohibition – this is unfair and unwarranted.
The passage outlines what the primary objective is in this New Age – what our real struggle is against. We’re not called as Christians to effect change by getting into politics, staging coups, or conducting holy wars. Likewise, we do not break bonds by watching Dr Phil, using “positive self talk,” or doing yoga. It is not our bodies or physical and earthly institutions that ultimately matter, rather, the kingdoms that for now remain unseen.
This passage does not say, or even suggest, that engaging in physical battle is prohibited. We are told that it is not our struggle – the primary cause with which we are to concern ourselves. The prohibitive rationale is imported into the passage – it is presupposed.
Consider that Eph 6 :12 was no less true in Old Testament times! This has always been the case. The Fall itself was a spiritual battle that was lost, not a physical one. And yet, God has been pleased to directly and explicitly instruct His people throughout history to train in and execute warfare.
What sense can we make of this?
“I feel this is stronger than positing that a band of men with swords could quite possibly be transgressors.”
This still doesn’t seem to explain the “for”, but I don’t think I can say much more about it…
“What I ask, again, is what do we learn about God in those moments where God wields a sword and that sword is eager to spill blood? And what do we learn when He, the Lord, calls His children, repeatedly, through direct command (with no apparent mention of or mediation by any power other than Himself) to bear arms and spill blood in kind?”
It tells us God is not a God who will let the world spin out of control; he we stop evil from entirely overcoming good, and use human beings to stop it as he wills.
““I am the Lord, I will repay” is in no way similar to, “We are a Nation, we will defend,” or, “We are a Nation, we will overthrow wickedness,” or, “I am a shepherd, I will drive out wolves,” or, “I am a husband, and I will protect.””
But why are they in now way similar? You have just asserted something without an argument here.
“Earnest prayers do not always deflect bullet and mortars, and the Lord has not called us be be naive in this.”
‘Do not worry about tomorrow, tomorrow will take care of itself,’ ‘Faith is the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen,’ ‘If a seed falls to the ground and dies, it will bear much fruit,’ etc. etc. I think there are enough verses like that to at least make it conceivable that God might ask us to have faith in his providence and not necessarily to violently take the course of history into our own hands, to “walk by sight” in terms of what we think is “obviously going to happen if we don’t step in and do something.” But I understand that if you don’t believe that God does not want us to use violence, you won’t believe that he expects us to have faith that our being nonviolent in obedience to him will ultimately do more good than being violent.
“What sense can we make of this?”
Why would Paul bother saying this verse in the first place?
Very well.
Firstly, Romans 12 and Hebrews 10 are both quoting Deut 32 – the Old Testament. That is to say, God made this declaration to the very people during the very era in which He called them to train for war and visit death on their neighbours. So the concept that vengeance is God’s is distinct and unrelated to anything covenantal.
If vengeance is comparable to violence, then God has placed His people in a very difficult place – vengeance is mine, but, go and kill. This is very confusing and so doesn’t seem consistent with God, making an assertion on minute then calling His children to do the opposite. How are these poor Israelites supposed to determine what’s right!
Now in Romans, interestingly, Paul only a few verses later says that governments do not bear the sword in vain – that is uselessly (it is in fact God’s will that they bear it). I do not believe he has forgotten what he just wrote in chapter 12.
Our definition of vengeance must evaluated.
Vengeance does not mean justice, and certainly does mean violence (I would imagine that a pacifist commentary would expand the definition though
I jest). This would put two adjacent passages at odds! One one hand Paul is quoting the Lord saying, “Violence is wrong,” and in the next breath, “Violence is fine.” (paraphrasing yes, but you follow).
No. Rather, vengeance means retribution, revenge, and vindictiveness – literally, to pay back. Paul defines it for us: never take your own revenge and this simply reinforces what Deuteronomy already said: I will repay.
Further, God says that he who does not discipline his child hates his child. A passage such as this suggest that the concepts of punishment, discipline, and justice are Godly ones and are therefor distinct from what is implied by “repayment.” This too would put God’s Words at odds with itself: we are to discipline a child by repayment is God’s? Impossible.
So we come to a clearer definition of what vengeance is: revenge (the words even share a root). Not punishment, not justice, not discipline – certainly not self-defence.
In no way does vengeance belonging to God forbid a nation from defending itself, especially when considering Rom 13 and I do not feel there is any way to demonstrate this is so. Repayment and national security – revenge and justice – are separate issues. This is just self evident.
As I said I do not disagree entirely. That “for” is not in all translations. Consider also Christ says, “is reaching” fulfillment, as in, has not yet reached, excluding the moment itself. We can both slice and dice the passage to pieces, but again, I don’t fully disagree with your reading, simply believe that it finds it’s most potent implications with a different reading.
But let’s grant your reading of it for the moment: this still does not really answer how Christ could command His disciples to bear arms if the act of bearing arms makes one a transgressor. This makes Christ an accessory to transgression and “fulfilling prophecy” is not a good enough excuse. The act of possessing weaponry cannot itself be sinful, though as you’ve said, the band of no-so-merry-men would certainly appear to be transgressors, but this cannot make them transgressors.
We cannot see Christ’s command as a commission to sin. Therefore, bearing swords is not sin. Consider also the what we are debating over – the Word – is a Sword. Yes, against the Spiritual, but is it really appropriate to analogize the Sacred Word with an object of entirely sinful purpose?
No! The very fact that what we are caught up in is warfare and we are called to fight reveals something about the heart of God. God praises the the valiant warrior. This SAYS something about Him. How can He esteem what is wrong?
How can God esteem the valiant warrior and years later label such a one a “transgressor.” This is not consistent. Powers or no powers, again, we are looking to God: what does He say about us and about Himself.
We could make this argument for anything. There are equally as many verses that say every man is to do his duty, fulfill his responsibilities, be proactive, and bear his own load.
The issue is not one of faith. Otherwise, you would not work to leave room for God to fill your wallet. You would not put gas in your car to leave for God to fill your tank. You would not eat to leave room for God to fill your stomach.
Faith does not remove responsibility. Faith does not excuse non-activity. Not always at least.
You apply this argument to war and violence because it accords with your preferences, but you would not apply it to every area of human life.
Again, God has commissioned war and commanded His children to participate. Christ himself – on the cusp of the New Covenant – was violent.
That faith should prevent physical force assumes to much, and dare I say makes no sense when we remember that faith has in fact lead to the battlefield.
They are giants. Their cities have walls. There are but 300 of us.
Faith, and to war.
* * * * *
To get back on target, I’ve read and re-read the passages you are refer to and am having a hard time really combining in the way you are trying to, and these are the reasons why:
1) God Himself called His people to war, and not any intermediary
2) Gal 3 talks about “powers” but specifically in reference the Law, and how it came to us, not forces that governed our fate or that we were at sometime accountable to
3) Eph 6 says that our struggle is against spiritual powers, but as I’ve said, this is to bring focus but not prohibition as you are implying
* * * * *
I hope I’m not exasperating you and I hope you don’t feel I’m being arrogant or disrespectful of you! I’m actually very much enjoying this exchange and your reflections are Iron to me.
“Firstly, Romans 12 and Hebrews 10 are both quoting Deut 32 – the Old Testament. That is to say, God made this declaration to the very people during the very era in which He called them to train for war and visit death on their neighbours.”
Right; I’m not saying the command would have meant the same thing in the OT.
But: the work of a ruler is precisely to “avenge evil”, according to Romans 13, so you can hardly say that “national defense” or the police function of the state is not vengeance. Romans 13 says it is.
And this leads into a second point: I also don’t think Paul forgot what he wrote in Romans 12 when he wrote Romans 13; he was precisely pointing to the difference between Christians and magistrates.
I also don’t think discipline and vengeance/punishment are the same thing, so I am okay with spanking but not with blowing people into tiny little bits
“That “for” is not in all translations.”
It is in the Greek.
“The act of possessing weaponry cannot itself be sinful, though as you’ve said, the band of no-so-merry-men would certainly appear to be transgressors, but this cannot make them transgressors.”
But for them to be considered transgressors is enough for them to be “numbered” among transgressors. It fulfills the prophecy as it is stated.
“Yes, against the Spiritual, but is it really appropriate to analogize the Sacred Word with an object of entirely sinful purpose?”
It’s not; God’s sword is not sinful, etc.
“We could make this argument for anything. There are equally as many verses that say every man is to do his duty, fulfill his responsibilities, be proactive, and bear his own load.”
Indeed, we could make this argument for anything which God prohibits us from doing, despite it’s potential to apparently bring about good consequences!
I already mentioned that you wouldn’t find this persuasive as an argument for pacifism; once someone has accepted it, however, it makes perfect sense as an application of those principles.
“1) God Himself called His people to war, and not any intermediary”
And my response to this was: God could have adapted his commands to the objective state he put Israel in, i.e., being under the powers. A comparable situation would be when Babylon invaded Israel: in previous times Israel was given the right to defend itself against invaders, but then God said through Jeremiah that he will stand against those who fight the Babylonians. God adapts commands to changing situations.
“2) Gal 3 talks about “powers” but specifically in reference the Law, and how it came to us, not forces that governed our fate or that we were at sometime accountable to”
Galatians 4:1-5: Now I say, as long as the heir [Israel] is a child, he does not differ at all from a slave although he is owner of everything, but he is under guardians and managers until the date set by the father. So also we [including Jews, as Paul is a Jew], while we were children, were held in bondage under the ‘elemental things of the world’. But when the fullness of time came, God sent forth His Son, born of a woman, born under the law, so that He might redeem those who were under the Law, that we might receive the adoption as sons.
Here Paul explicitly tells us that Israel was accountable to, and managed by the powers, before Christ.
“3) Eph 6 says that our struggle is against spiritual powers, but as I’ve said, this is to bring focus but not prohibition as you are implying”
Remember that you brought up this passage; I don’t think I can necessarily prove pacifism from this passage, but as with the “faith” passages, I think once you accept it it comes into even clearer focus than if you don’t. However, I think if you recognize the meaning of Jesus commands (see my most recent post, Love your enemies part IV), this passage points strongly toward what I’m saying: we are supposed to live a different political ethic than the powers, which most directly has to do with who are enemies are and how we treat them.
“I hope I’m not exasperating you and I hope you don’t feel I’m being arrogant or disrespectful of you! I’m actually very much enjoying this exchange and your reflections are Iron to me.”
I’m not exasperated at all, though these comments are getting longer and more time-consuming to respond to, which might incline me to let it go at some point soon.
Then I’ll try to be brief (it’s so hard!).
No, Romans 13 says that the State does not bear the sword in vain, and does so in keeping with God’s design: that is, the sword is permitted to the State. Since vengeance is God’s alone, yet God permits the State bear the sword, it’s a logical impossibility that the State is infringing on God’s territory by using force. The two do not reconcile when you define the terms as you are doing.
The point being made then is this: do not take your own revenge, the Lord will repay and He’ll use the State (at times) to do it – it’s there, in force, by Divine ordination.
Haha. Granted. So are you saying that somewhere the scriptures deny the State the ability to defend itself against threat? Do you feel that the police who show up to stop a crime are acting immorally? Rom 13 suggests that they are God’s provision and are in fact doing His will. What would be a stronger Biblical argument in opposition be?
Sorry – Christ was numbered among the transgressors… meaning those He was numbered with actually had to be transgressors – actually had to be sinners.
The disciples were considered sinners because of their association with Christ, which introduces a logical problem. The passage says He was numbered with sinners, that is, He was coming to be counted with those who were already deemed sinful, not those whoe might come to be afterward because of their association with Him.
So, being the King’s weapon it is holy, thus, not sinful. I agree. What then do you make of Rom 13? The passage is emphatic that the State’s authority is God’s authority. The sword has been placed in our hands by the Lord – we borrow His blade, do we not?
Granted… and we could go in circles on what this means for violence today so I think we’ll both just let it lie.
Well, you did by implication:
In the NT, the church is said to no longer be under the elementary principles/powers, but rather fighting/working against them to get them to submit to Christ the King
I figured Eph 6 was where you would be taking the emphasized point from…
“Sorry – Christ was numbered among the transgressors… meaning those He was numbered with actually had to be transgressors – actually had to be sinners.”
Why? It fits the point of the prophecy, and explains why Christ asked them to get swords (which has zero to do with him being crucified with thieves, and thus does not explain the “for” in the Greek).
“I figured Eph 6 was where you would be taking the emphasized point from…”
But I wasn’t trying to deduce pacifism from this point; I was more reasoning abductively, that there are two structural changes in the shift from the OT to the NT: the relationship of God’s people to the powers, and (in my view) the relationship of God’s people to violence, and was thus trying to draw a possible correlation.
Since you discovered my comments about Romans 13 elsewhere, I’ll continue that discussion there.
I’m on the verge of accepting your reading completely. I have read and reread the passage (Luke 22:36-38) in a variety of translations, and the one thing that struck me is Christ’s response, “It is enough.”
It follows the presentation of swords and I think we can read, “It is enough,” as an answer, in the same way we read, “It is finished.”
So if I’m going to be honest with the passage in the way that I encourage others to be, I must agree with your reading, save one thing:
when we read the original prophesy, we get more information:
When we read the prophesy we notice something important:
It is all speaking about the specific act of Redemption – the Crucifixion and Resurrection. When we examine the portion in question: “Because He poured out Himself to death, and was numbered with the transgressors,” we see a link, do we not? When dealing with the prophecy itself, it would appear it is concerned with the events directly surrounding Christ’s Ordeal. He was crucified because He was counted as a transgressor, effectively being counted among them (when you are found guilty, you are among the guilty).
So I’m having trouble really connecting the two smoothly, as I’ve said, I do agree with your reading of Luke, but it does not blend smoothly with the prophecy when we accept it on its terms.
I suppose we simply trust that Christ is interpreting for us, despite what our own conclusions might otherwise be?
“He was crucified because He was counted as a transgressor, effectively being counted among them (when you are found guilty, you are among the guilty).”
Yes, exactly; the Romans (and the Jewish establishment) counted him as a zealot, a transgressor in their eyes, and thus crucified him.