Why even pacifists should practice self defense

[Caleb]

I didn't question what Christ said in the verse, KB, I questioned your interpretation of it.

Christ gave you a clear command not to resist evil.  The rest of the testimony of the NT is quite clear on our new command to love even our enemies.  There is not a single recorded instance of a Christian fighting back.

No ... scratch that.  There IS a recorded instance of a Christian fighting back.  He was rebuked by Christ!  "Return your sword to its sheath, for those who take the sword will perish by the sword!"

Some Christians in their desperation to disobey Christ on this command like to focus on the first part of that clause, and say that the reason that Peter was told to return the sword was because Christ mission was to die.  That exegesis completely overlooks the universal nature of the second part of the clause.  The testimony of the early church confirms that the early church believed Christ's prohibition against taking the sword to apply universally to all Christians. "But how will a Christian man 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)

So when I ask you to cite other witnesses ... it is because you have a clear command by Christ to return your sword to its sheath and to refrain from resisting evil.  In light of these clear commands, I find your interpretation of the verse in question to be suspect, and ask you to reinforce it by bringing in other witnesses. 

I will take your professed indignation as silent admission that you do not have another witness.

Caleb

[Pat K]

   And I repeat the question -Also if some nut cake breaks in tonight Caleb and states after he kills you, everyone else is next. Are you just going to let him?

[KBCraig]

I didn't question what Christ said in the verse, KB, I questioned your interpretation of it.

My interpretation is what the verse says: the Christ told his disciples to bear swords. Perhaps you know of some other use of swords, other than as weapons. They're not especially effective for hunting, nor for harvesting crops, and they make rather cheesy household decorations. "I knight thee..." really wasn't part of the vernacular at the time.

Jesus told the disciples that it was more important to have a sword, than to have a cloak. How do you explain His insistence that they be more protected from evil men, than from foul weather?

Christ gave you a clear command not to resist evil.

So, can we expect to see you at the next pro-war, pro-government rally? What, you mean you resist those things that you term as "evil"? How can you be an anti-war anarchist, resisting those things you believe to be evil, and be consistent with your understanding of Matthew 5:39?

"But how will a Christian man 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)

You question the legitimacy of a passage from the Gospel of Luke, a contemporary of the Christ, yet quote Tertullian? Tertullian's conversion was more than 150 years after the crucifixion. He was an ascetic who made Paul look like a women's libber. He's considered the father of the Latin church, although the Latin tradition holds that he fell into heresy. Even the Montanists were too liberal for his tastes.

So when I ask you to cite other witnesses ... it is because you have a clear command by Christ to return your sword to its sheath and to refrain from resisting evil.  In light of these clear commands, I find your interpretation of the verse in question to be suspect, and ask you to reinforce it by bringing in other witnesses.

Caleb, my brother... seriously. Do you want me to waste our time by digging through your posts to show how you've failed to "resist evil", and how you actively support such resistance? "Resisting evil" is our entire purpose here. Perhaps I've missed your condemnation of Lauren. Or Russell. Or Michael. Or Kat. Or anyone refusing to pay taxes that pay for war and other evils. If I have overlooked such condemnation, please point me to your rebuke of them for daring to "resist evil".

I will take your professed indignation as silent admission that you do not have another witness.

I have not professed indignation. I am not indignant, professed or otherwise. I'm truly curious how you square your belief that the Christ taught total sacrifical pacifism, vice his order to the disciples that they arm themselves. I'm curious how that squares with the complete absence of any command to disarm.

The Christ ordered Peter to sheath his sword, not to toss it away. A sheathed sword is ready for use when needed; Peter, always a bit of a hothead and zealot, tried to stop the arrest of Jesus even though it was time for that arrest. Jesus wished to willingly submit, not be taken by force; He rebuked Peter for not understanding that this was the time. He healed the man's ear; what a testimony!

I acknowledge that a case can be made against Christian self-defense, especially when faith is in the equation. But I can find no Biblical support for allowing evil to be perpetrated against others. If you had been delivering a package of books to that Amish school, would you have resisted the evil assailant? Would you have joined the victims in their fate? Would you have joined those who ran to the nearest non-Amish farm to dial 9-1-1, to summon men with guns to resist the evil assailant, despite the victims' pacifistic theology?

Anarchist and libertarian Christians (and even non-religious freedom lovers) often quote Pastor Martin Niemöller's despair that he did nothing when they came for the communists... the socialists... the unionists. Do you join his despair that millions died for his inaction? Or do you condemn his desire to resist evil?

I will tolerate personal insults and evil blows until the end of time. I will not stand aside while such are delivered to innocents. To fail to resist would mean being party to it. I'm pretty sure that Jesus had a reason for ordering His followers to take up swords, and resisting evil has to be right up near the top.

Kevin

[Caleb]

yes, Kevin, I *do* know of another use for a sword, particularly one that is in the  context of Jesus statement at the time.

Jesus was speaking of the fact that they would lose the Jewish tradition of hospitality.  He ordered them at the same time to carry a money pouch, etc.  In other words "Don't count on hospitality from the Jews."  Previously, they had been told "into whatever city or village you enter search out who is worthy and stay there until you leave."  Now, they could not count on that.  What would that mean?

Think about it Kevin:  It would mean SLEEPING OUTSIDE!!!!!!  Just look at Paul's tribulations.

In that context, I can make the case that the primary use of the sword would have been protection against animals.  You may disagree, but since the passage is in doubt, it's not asking too much for you to find another witness.

The word "resist" in Greek carries the connotation "with force or violence".  It was a military term. That's why some scholars have suggested the best rendition would be "Do not violently resist evil"  The Christian commission is to be the salt of the earth, so I do not criticize anyone for resisting evil non-violently.

But the fact is undeniable:  NOWHERE in the NT are we authorized to use violence even in self-defense or in behalf of others.  Nor is there a single recorded instance of that happening, save the Peter situation which we have already shown does not support the concept of defense of others.  At best it is neutral, and the Universal nature of the second part of the clause (you know the part you avoided "for those who take the sword will perish by the sword") supports the contention of many of the early church fathers (tertullian most explicity, but many other fathers as well) that Jesus prohibition against the sword applied not only to Peter but to all Christians as well.

Even your passage does not authorize the USE of the sword, but merely the carrying of it.  And like I said, we must interpret this Scripture within the context of the rest of Scripture and the understanding of the early church, lest we fall into heresy.

[Lloyd Danforth]

   And I repeat the question -Also if some nut cake breaks in tonight Caleb and states after he kills you, everyone else is next. Are you just going to let him?

If  he states it after he kills Caleb, Caleb won't be able to not let him

[Russell Kanning]

   And I repeat the question -Also if some nut cake breaks in tonight Caleb and states after he kills you, everyone else is next. Are you just going to let him?

shhhhhh Caleb is too busy arguing.

[Pat K]

   And I repeat the question -Also if some nut cake breaks in tonight Caleb and states after he kills you, everyone else is next. Are you just going to let him?

If  he states it after he kills Caleb, Caleb won't be able to not let him

Lloyd you are such a grammer Queen.

[Dreepa]

Hell isn't most of the old testament about killing people anyway?

I think the sling is cool.   David.. nice  except I am more the size of Goliath.

Which reminds me... remember the claymation Davy and Goliath.  Nice
Claymation is cool.

[Michael Fisher]

Jesus said in Matthew 5:
38 "You have heard that it was said, 'Eye for eye, and tooth for tooth.' 39 But I tell you, Do not resist an evil person. If someone strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also. 40 And if someone wants to sue you and take your tunic, let him have your cloak as well. 41 If someone forces you to go one mile, go with him two miles. 42 Give to the one who asks you, and do not turn away from the one who wants to borrow from you."

Jesus clearly commands us to allow ourselves to be hurt, and not to strike back even in self-defense.  It seems to me that this world is a test of our character for inclusion into Heaven, a test of our faith.  When we realize that this is NOT life, but simply a test, then perhaps we will be in the right state of mind to enter Heaven.

Matthew 5:
43 "You have heard that it was said, 'Love your neighbor and hate your enemy.' 44 But I tell you: Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, 45 that you may be sons of your Father in heaven."

Luke 6:
27"But I tell you who hear me: Love your enemies, do good to those who hate you, 28 bless those who curse you, pray for those who mistreat you."

Luke 6:
35 "But love your enemies, do good to them, and lend to them without expecting to get anything back. Then your reward will be great, and you will be sons of the Most High, because he is kind to the ungrateful and wicked. 36 Be merciful, just as your Father is merciful."

Jesus clearly commands us to always do good to others, even if they do evil toward us, and to even lend money to our enemies without expecting anything back. It's not about this "test life", it's about our true life. If we go the difficult way and enter the narrow gate into Heaven, only then will life truly begin.

Though my knowledge and experience in this world tells me that Jesus is wrong, and though the vast majority of people will probably disagree with it, what Jesus said is extremely clear.

[Michael Fisher]

We are not to be surprised by our trials, but are to thank God for them. Non-Christians probably see that as near insanity.

That's the beautiful thing about Christianity. It does not make sense to those with their hearts in this world. It is completely nonsensical to them.

To us, the end is irrelevant. What matters is God's direction. We can trust him with the rest.

Who are we to question his commandments?

[Pat K]

Well I'M Pat K and I will question all I want.

God WTF are you doing taking a nap?

[Michael Fisher]

In response to the earlier theoretical situation...

Let's say I'm in World War 3. Neocons knock on my door and ask if I have any libertarians living with me. I have two choices:
1) Lie and everyone in my house lives; or
2) Tell the truth and everyone in my house dies.

The world says that if you choose #2, then you are just as responsible for the death of everyone as if you had killed them yourself. Nonsense.

The Lord says to tell the truth always, and if you do not, then you are no better than a murderer. If you choose #1 then, in theory, God believes that you have sinned equivalent to killing someone.

Therefore, I hope that I would have the courage to choose #2. Everyone would die, but God's will would be done.

The commandments do not say, "unless it will save someone's life." Why, then, do so many people try to add that to it? If they don't like God's commandments, then they do not have their hearts in the right place.

[Pat K]

Remind me not to ever stay with Mike.

[Michael Fisher]

Remind me not to ever stay with Mike.

Hehe

Well, the world believes incorrectly anyways: It was not the truth-teller that killed anyone. It was the murderers. Period.

[KBCraig]

In response to the earlier theoretical situation...

Let's say I'm in World War 3. Neocons knock on my door and ask if I have any libertarians living with me. I have two choices:
1) Lie and everyone in my house lives; or
2) Tell the truth and everyone in my house dies.

You forgot:
3) Do not answer;
4) Redirect; or
5) Give a non-answer

Therefore, I hope that I would have the courage to choose #2. Everyone would die, but God's will would be done.

I do not accept that the death of innocents is God's will.

You forgot a couple of commandments: "Love thy neighbor (more literally, "fellow man") as thyself." And, "Greater love hath no man, than to lay down his life so that others may live."

You erred by limiting yourself to the either/or of lying or telling the truth. There's also another option: sacrifice yourself to save those within. If you're committed to pacifism, you might not protect them (the JBTs can search freely after you've been dealt with), but at least you won't have given them up with a shrug.

Kevin