Of swords and words

I love talking with friends about how to live like Jesus. This will not be a surprise to most of you, as I never really shut up. One of my favorite topics to discuss is the pacifism of Jesus. This is a complex topic, and like most topics, I have friends across the entire spectrum of beliefs. But most of these conversations inevitably turn to the topic of swords. Is this because swords are awesome? Probably.

Zen and the art of Xenophobia

(Image only slightly related, but I love it.)

Here are the three most common “sword passages” that I’ve seen used in this way:
Matthew 26:52– “Put your sword back in its place,” Jesus said to him, “for all who draw the sword will die by the sword.
Luke 22:36– He said to them, “But now if you have a purse, take it, and also a bag; and if you don’t have a sword, sell your cloak and buy one.
Matthew 10:34– Do not suppose that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I did not come to bring peace, but a sword.

If you are anything like me, you are likely to focus on one of these passages; because Bible verses about swords are kind of like actual swords- double-edged. Personally, as a pacifist, I grab onto the first of the three because it confirms my worldview. And I have traditionally flinched when somebody brings up the second one, and then I ignore it because Jesus telling his disciples to buy a sword makes me uncomfortable. But it finally got under my skin enough that I had to do more research.

Looking at Luke 22:36 in a vacuum seems to be a clear endorsement by Jesus of the awesomeness of swords. Let’s look at not just the surrounding verses, but the context of what was happening here. This is during the Last Supper, in Jerusalem, as tensions mount. The religious leaders are trying to trick him into betraying himself through His words and actions, and Jesus knows one of his own disciples is going to betray him. Their very next stop is Gethsemane and Judas has already left to search for the authorities. It makes sense to make preparations to defend yourself in these circumstances, right?

Here’s the whole passage:
He said to them, “When I sent you out without a purse, bag, or sandals, did you lack anything?” They said, “No, not a thing.”
He said to them, “But now, the one who has a purse must take it, and likewise a bag. And the one who has no sword must sell his cloak and buy one.
For I tell you, this scripture must be fulfilled in me, ‘And he was counted among the lawless’; and indeed what is written about me is being fulfilled.”
They said, “Lord, look, here are two swords.”
He replied, “It is enough.”
-Luke 22:35-38

First of all, what are two swords among 12 men “enough” for? Especially against the Roman legions? If Jesus wants to put up a fight He makes it abundantly clear that He can call on a legion of angels.

Jesus tells us exactly why the swords are needed in verse 37, but I had always skimmed over that. As I’m not a first-century jew, I had no idea what scripture He was referencing. For the record, it is Isaiah 53:12 (The whole chapter is a beautiful prophecy of Jesus.) The swords aren’t required for offense or defense, but to make Jesus and his disciples look like criminals or rebels.

This fits in with my (former) favorite sword verse, as within twenty four hours of this conversation Peter is slicing the ear off of a servant with one of those same swords. (Sidenote: I’ve heard some pacifists argue that Jesus never meant they should literally buy swords but I think that argument has no scriptural ground to stand on, largely because of this passage.) Jesus rebukes Peter, heals the servant, and He is arrested. The swords are not “enough” to defend Jesus from what comes next, because that was never the point of the swords. The swords served their purpose. Not to keep Him off the cross, but to get Him on the cross between two criminals.

Peter’s reactionary sword-swinging is the final example we have of any of the disciples engaging in what could be called self-defense. The apostles, like us, were a little slow sometimes- but this lesson appears to have sunk in. The majority of them met an ugly end, and I’m not aware of a single apostle who went out “guns blazing.”

To be honest, I still have no idea what to do with the final sword verse I listed: “Do not suppose that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I did not come to bring peace, but a sword.”

Any thoughts? Is this verse as scary as it sounds? Is there another verse I’m missing? (Does this mean we can stop singing “Prince of Peace”?)

Advertisements

War: A Force That Gives Us Meaning

A new and beautiful perspective on pacifism.

frontal lobotomy

For whatever reason, pacifism is considered by many Christians to mean something other than non-violence. I’m not entirely sure why this is, except that we don’t understand what the word means or implies. So, here’s a definition: 1 : opposition to war or violence as a means of settling disputes ; specifically : refusal to bear arms on moral or religious grounds 2 : an attitude or policy of nonresistance (Merriam-Websters Dictionary).
Keep that in mind.
The Bible is an unfolding story of God bringing his people into new ways of living and understanding. As such, it is also full of history about the way things were, and hints of the way things are supposed to be. There are provisions for war, and even startling verses like this from the “Song of Moses”: “I will make my arrows drunk with blood, and my sword shall devour flesh-with the blood of…

View original post 717 more words

So what if…?

When people hear I believe in Christian pacifism, the same question inevitably follows in one form or another.

What if?

I’ve been asked this question countless times in different permutations; sometimes it’s me in danger, sometimes my wife, sometimes an innocent child. But the core is always the same- some faceless sub-human aggressor wants to use violence against me or somebody else and I ostensibly only have two options: counter violence with violence or passively allow the aggressor to do whatever they want. Oh and this is routine crime, not to be confused with persecution specifically for my belief in Christ. As if that is somehow a completely different situation.

I find the concept that violence is ever “just” or “holy” hard to mesh with the scriptures about Jesus. That somehow the command to love your enemies carries the qualifier to only do so if it is comfortable and safe. Some people will say that pacifism is a nice idea, but it just isn’t possible in the real world. I think Jesus showed us he meant what he said and became the ultimate example of just how far it is possible to go when loving our enemies. Most of his disciples followed his example, yet we can’t handle somebody taking our big screen tv.

But don’t confuse pacifism with passivism. Pacifism isn’t laying down to be stepped upon, it is heaping burning coals on the head of one who would do harm to you. Jesus was very good at this. The context behind turning the other cheek, walking two miles, and giving your coat as well as your shirt were as far from passive as they are from violent. All three would bring shame upon the aggressor without becoming an aggressor yourself.

Just to show that I’m not completely dodging the question, here is my honest answer:
– Why would I live my entire life based on what would happen if somebody wanted to hurt me or my loved ones?
– In the extremely rare case that this theoretical predicament comes to pass, I’d do what Jesus did and try to find a third way- a way to resist evil with good instead of evil.
– Failing that, (as that is inevitably the next question) I would sin. I would respond to violence with violence and repent of it afterward without trying to justify my actions with a caricature of God, made in my image.

I grieve for this part of me. I have a heart full of violence. I crave vengeance for the smallest slights. But this isn’t of God, it’s a rejection of God.

smash-pacifism

Have you ever been asked this question? Have you ever asked it? Help me out here.