Why even pacifists should practice self defense

[KBCraig]

A sword for defense from animals? What animals were there in the place where Christ lived which would necessitate a defense by sword. Maybe jackles, but why use a sword to protect oneself from an animal? A spear would have been cheaper and more effective.

I did a brief research on that, but couldn't find any information about the fauna of the biblical lands. There may have been jackals or wild dogs; there were swine, some of which may have gone feral (you really don't want to tangle with a wild pig!) Sheep, goats, and camels are not known as predatory carnivores. 

I also had the same thought that a spear would be a better defensive weapon against wild animals, but then I am unconvinced that word for "sword" used in this passage ("short sword", or "dagger") implies anything other than a weapon for defense against men.

Furthermore, could the "turn the other cheek" passage be construed as symbolic. Afterall, to be struck with the palm and not the back of the hand would have symbolized equality? That's the most logical interpretation of that passage that I've heard.

The passage, Matthew 5:38,39, says: "You have heard that it was said, 'An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth.' But I tell you, do not resist an evil person. If someone strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also."

Note that it says quite specifically, "strikes you on the right cheek". It's an unusual way to be specific; what does it imply? If someone strikes you on the right cheek, it means that either they backhanded you with their right hand, or they hit you from behind using their right hand, or they hit you face to face with their left hand. Since the left hand is unclean in the Semitic tradition (something Islam still holds true), all three options imply a grave insult. This passage means that you should not take offense at insults; you should lovingly show the offender that you forgive him.

This doesn't extract out to the completely different situation where the offender is striking with a sword instead of his hand.

Kevin

[Caleb]

On animals, probably the most dangerous animals they would face would be wolves.  You wouldn't want to face wolves with a spear because wolves attack in packs, and once you throw your spear it is gone and you would have to retrieve it. Alternatively, you could poke at a wolf with it, but it is so long that the wolf could likely grab at the spear and and break it off (spear heads in ancient Israel were tied to the wooden end by cord or leather.)   You would want something that could be kept close to your body.

No go on your second example either, Kevin, because most Bible scholars are of the opinion that the text best indicates that Jesus drove out the animals only with the whip not the merchants, and then turned over the tables of the merchants.  No violence used on the merchants themselves. Just on their livestock and property. That's why the NIV (which I agree is a paraphrase) reads in the way it does so as to make clear that only animals were drove out with whips.

Caleb, do you include the apochryphal texts in scripture, since they are just as valid as the new Testament? Most of them anyway.

What do you mean by apocryphal texts, Nick.  The early church did not have a very clear definition of canon, and many books (such as the Shepherd of Hermas and the letters of Clement) were recognized as authoritative.  When the canon was set, a distinction was made between Scripture and the work of authoritative early fathers, and thus books such as the Shepherd of Hermas and the letters of Clement were moved from the context of Scripture and placed into the context of the ante-nicene Fathers, where they more properly belong. Thus, they are still accorded respect, but not considered Scripture, which is probably a good distinction to be made because Scripture was supposed to be from the Apostolic period, and written by an apostle or one of his secretaries (which is why Mark and Luke are considered canonical:  Mark and Luke were not apostolic authorities, but their gospels carried the weight of their apostolic sponsors:  Peter and Paul respectively.) That having been said, I *do* consider the ante-nicene fathers to be somewhat authoritative.  Interestingly enough, the general testimony of the ante-nicene Fathers was a pacifist position.  But I was chided by KB for bringing the Fathers into it.

Usually when people speak of the apocryphal books, they do not have in mind the ante-nicene Fathers (many of whom were removed from the popular concept of canon into their own category), but instead refer to heretical writings that were written in the second to fourth centuries.  Those I do not accept as canonical, because they are writings that are too far removed from the historical context, by people who did not know the historical Jesus nor any of his apostles, and were universally condemned by Orthodoxy for having rejected the testimony of the Apostles. Fortunately, the early Fathers were prolific writer's against the heresies, and thus we have some background information on the groups responsible for producing the non-canonical heretical gospels

One interesting exception may be the Gospel of Thomas.  Unfortunately, the early church didn't keep extensive information on the rejected books, so we don't have enough evidence to put Thomas into the canon, but it was possibly rejected unfairly. It appears that Thomas was rejected because of a single passage that, interpreted the wrong way, appears to be anti-woman.  I think a different interpretation lends itself, and otherwise I find it to be in keeping with the spirit of Christ.

Caleb

[KBCraig]

On animals, probably the most dangerous animals they would face would be wolves.  You wouldn't want to face wolves with a spear because wolves attack in packs, and once you throw your spear it is gone and you would have to retrieve it.

Spears are for thrusting, not throwing.

I only found five verses that mention wolf or wolves (always figuratively), and only two of them in the NT. I think they must not have been common.

[MaineShark]

Spears are for thrusting, not throwing.

I only found five verses that mention wolf or wolves (always figuratively), and only two of them in the NT. I think they must not have been common.

And wolves do not typically attack humans.  Maybe people commonly made that mistake, but one would expect a diety to know of the habits of animals that were created, if one believes in such.  A spear or bow would be for defense against animals.  Swords are for interpersonal combat.

Joe

[Dreepa]

  Swords are for interpersonal combat.

Joe

Like cutting off ears.

[Caleb]

So you aren?t buying my argument that the sword could be used for warding off animals in the event of sleeping outside?  Seems plausible enough to me, but here are a few other possibilities for interpreting Luke 22:36

a)  The sword could be used merely as a bluff.  In other words, if bandits saw 12 men with swords, they probably would leave them alone and never hassle them in the first place. Once again, I point out that the Lord permitted them to carry swords, not to use them against humans.  You are inferring that, but it is not stated.

b)  The sword could have had a purpose in ancient Palestine that we have yet to uncover, but that would make perfect sense within a Pacifist context.  New discoveries are constantly illuminating our understanding of Bible passages, often times making a difficult passage seem quite within its proper context.

c)  Jesus could have been speaking in hyperbole, much as he was when he told his disciples to pluck out their eye if it caused stumbling.  This argument would tend to make sense because of Jesus? response when his disciples responded to his statement by saying, ?Lord, look here are two swords.?  Jesus response was Ikanon estin which in the original Greek can have two meanings (just as it can in English.)  Namely, Jesus could have been saying, "That will be a sufficient number of swords (It will be enough)" ? OR ? he could have been saying "Enough of that nonsense! (Enough!)"  Either is grammatically possible in the Greek, and if we suppose the latter, it would actually make the verse lend support to the pacifist position. See this link http://lists.ibiblio.org/pipermail/b-greek/2001-October/018901.html

Once again, Kev, this is a verse in dispute.  I would hardly want to disobey Christ?s command not to resist evil (violently) on the basis of this one Scripture that might be misunderstood.  And like I keep saying ? if the proper interpretation of Jesus' position is that we should use violence in defense of others, we should see this happening all throughout the book of Acts.  Why don?t we see any Christians fulfilling their god-given responsibility to defend innocents?  Could it be that they did not understand the Christ to desire this?

[tracysaboe]

Caleb why did you completely ignore my post.

From Ephesian. "A man should love his wife as he loves his own body, and should nurture and cherish her."  How do you nuture somebody if you're dead? How do you cherish somebody if you won't defend them? In fact some translations actually say "Provide and protect." You can't defend someobdy if you're not willing to - - ah -- defend them?

From a Christian pacifist perspective, I would say that I have been ordered by Christ to a) not resist evil  b) turn the other cheek  c) pray for those who persecute me.

Christ says that the Christian will be beaten, flogged, forced into exile, hailed before kings, and murdered for the gospel.

Ironically, never does Christ say that a Christian will flog, imprison, try before a judge, or kill a non-christian.  The Christian is to endure persecution when it comes (1 Cor. 4:12; 1 Pet. 2:21-23) or if possible try to flee (Mark 14:50-52; Matt. 10:23).

We simply are not authorized to use violence in self-defense.  It's a matter of obedience.

Caleb and I have different interpretations of said scriptures.

The Bible also comands me to defend my family. (It's spelled out in the definition of what love is in Ephesians.) PErhaps when confronted with deadly force I personally should have the mentality of taking it. The worst he can do is kill me after all. But how can I love my wife and be a good provider and ad good defender of my wife if I'm dead?

That's a logical disconnect to me.

I've gone rounds with Mike on this topic as well, so I won't go into a lot of detail, but it doesn't seem to me that pacifism is what Jesus taught.

BTW. Turning the other cheek was not an invitation to get smacked again. It was symbolic of the period. Simular to "biting ones thumb off to a person."

TRacy

[Caleb]

Caleb why did you completely ignore my post.

From Ephesian. "A man should love his wife as he loves his own body, and should nurture and cherish her."  How do you nuture somebody if you're dead? How do you cherish somebody if you won't defend them? In fact some translations actually say "Provide and protect." You can't defend someobdy if you're not willing to - - ah -- defend them?

Didn't see it, Tracy. 

In fairness, the answer to your question readily suggests itself.  "How do you nurture someone if you're dead?" and "How do you cherish somebody if you won't defend them?" are non-sequiters. They simply don't follow from the premise.

Paul said to love your wife as you love yourself. "For no man ever hated his own body, but he feeds and cherishes it.  So every man must love his wife."

It's obvious that this love for ourself is not absolute, nor is our obligation to care for our families absolute.  We would not breach God's moral requirements in order to do so. 

Let me give you an example: Would you renounce Christ in order to stay alive so as to feed your family?  Obviously not!  It follows that we are called to provide for our families by whatever realistic means are available to us.  Ignoring Christ's commands is not a realistic means available to us.  Christ simply commands you not to resist evil violently (Mt 5:39), to suffer under evil (Phil 1:27-30), to bless those who curse you and pray for those who persecute you (Luke 6:28) to love your enemies (Luke 6:38) to bless those who persecute you and bear up under their evil (1 Cor. 4:12), to refrain from seeking vengeance (Romans 12:17-20), to conquer evil, not with evil but with good (Romans 12:21) and to follow in the footsteps of Christ by disowning our own way of thinking and by sharing in his suffering, even at the expense of his family (Luke 14:26,27).  These commands are fundamental to Christianity; we ignore them at our own peril.  We cannot sacrifice the moral requirements of Christ for any cause, even for the sake of our families. It is one thing to abandon one's family.  It is quite another to have oneself or one's family experience the suffering that comes from obeying Christ's commands. If you suffer as a Christian (obeying Christ's commands) you need feel no shame. (1 Pet 4:15)

Hope this helps

Caleb

[KBCraig]

From Ephesian. "A man should love his wife as he loves his own body, and should nurture and cherish her."  How do you nuture somebody if you're dead? How do you cherish somebody if you won't defend them? In fact some translations actually say "Provide and protect." You can't defend someobdy if you're not willing to - - ah -- defend them?

Paul said to love your wife as you love yourself. "For no man ever hated his own body, but he feeds and cherishes it.  So every man must love his wife."

If a mans loves his wife as he loves his own body, and will do nothing to protect himself, how does he protect or cherish his wife? Answer: he doesn't.

Of course, if you take the position that he should defend neither himself nor his wife, then he literally does love her as he loves his own body: not at all.

[Caleb]

or perhaps just loves Christ more than he loves himself.

It makes absolutely no sense to claim that a person can stoop to any level of unethical behavior if he can somehow justify it as "nourishing" or "cherishing" his family.

"Sure I pulled off that bank heist ... a man's gotta feed his family right?  I mean, if I didn't feed my family I'd be worse off than a man without faith." 

[MaineShark]

a)  The sword could be used merely as a bluff.  In other words, if bandits saw 12 men with swords, they probably would leave them alone and never hassle them in the first place. Once again, I point out that the Lord permitted them to carry swords, not to use them against humans.  You are inferring that, but it is not stated

Threatening to do violence is still violence.

"Oh, I only threatened to kill him; I never would have gone through with it!" hardly seems pacific to me...

Joe

[KBCraig]

or perhaps just loves Christ more than he loves himself.

"Husbands, love your wives as Christs loves His church."

Would Christ protect and defend the church?

[Caleb]

Kevin this is getting ridiculous!    No.  Christ absolutely will not protect and defend the Church from all external violence.  Hence the martyrs and the fact that he told you that you would be persecuted.

How it seems that some of us want an easy Christianity.  But if you love only those who do good to you, what reward do you have?

[tracysaboe]

Caleb there's a HUGE difference from defending yourself from some punk vs renowncing your faith.

Tracy

[Caleb]

Well, I wasn?t saying it is quite the same, Tracy, I was using an extreme example to show that there are limits to what a Christian may do in caring for his family.  Simply, you must stay within the confines of moral behavior.

And who sets the standards of that moral behavior?  Christ does.  The very one who explicitly orders you to love your enemies, bear up under evil, and to refrain from violently resisting evil.

And is it really so different from renouncing Christ, Tracy? A rich guy came up to Jesus and said, ?Lord, I?ve kept all the commands since I was a little fry.  What more can I do??  Jesus gave him a hard saying: ?Sell everything you own and give to the poor.?  The man did not walk away with hatred in his heart towards Christ ? but he did walk away.  Grieved.  If you believed that Christ demanded pacifism of you ... would you walk away grieved?  Sometimes the attempt to make the hard saying go away is really an attempt to avoid making the choice:  For Christ? Or for ourselves?  Who is sovereign in our life?

We don?t follow Christ only when it?s easy and he doesn?t ask anything of us.  We pick up our cross, consider ourselves to be of no account, and follow him in trust, even when what he asks is difficult.  Like Christ said ? he who is faithful in what is least will also be faithful in what is much.