For 1700 years or so it has been the majority view among Christians
that Jesus was no pacifist. This is hardly surprising given the number of wars
fought, directed, and instigated by sincere, doctrinally orthodox, Christians. History would make no sense, and neither
would the political commitments of most contemporary Christians, if Jesus were
a pacifist.
Yet there is some reasonably strong textual support in the
gospels for the proposition that pacifism of some variety was part of Jesus’s
message: “But I say unto you, That ye resist not evil: but whosoever shall
smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also.” (Matthew 5:39.
Nearly the same: Luke 6:29.) “[F]or all they that take the sword shall perish
with the sword.” (Matthew 26:52).
The exegetical enterprise bent on demonstrating that these
passages do not mean what they say has been determined and well credentialed. Sometimes it is a little crude, but sometimes
it displays strong scholarship and not implausible arguments. Still, I think
the tradition has been somewhat more confident than is warranted in its
conclusion that Jesus was no pacifist.
I will go into some detail on “perish with the sword” below.
The chief thing I want to do, however, is to call to your attention an
historical fact that bears on the interpretive issue, but that the
anti-pacifist commentators too frequently ignore: The first generations of the
followers of Jesus generally forswore the use of violence with determination
and consistency. Although there were
some Christians impressed into Roman armies, or otherwise implicated in martial
activities, the writings of the church fathers
set out a doctrine of rigorous non-violence.
That pacifism was the
original understanding.
There are, of course, many different forms and gradations of
pacifism. Whether Jesus was a pacifist in the “modern sense” or the “strongest
sense,” I will pass over. The categorization of pacifism and the study of the evolution
of pacifist ideas are worthwhile undertakings. These subtleties, however, would not repay our time here. The
“Jesus was no pacifist” interpreters commonly intend that Jesus would take no
issue with their own view that many military operations past, present or future
are “just wars.” Their position amounts to the claim that Jesus was no sort of
pacifist at all.
A small sample of some early fathers of the church:
We ourselves were well conversant
with war, murder, and everything evil, but all of us throughout the whole wide
earth have traded in our weapons of war. We have exchanged our swords for
ploughshares, our spears for farm tools.
(Justin Martyr 160 CE)
If a loud trumpet summons
soldiers to war, shall not Christ with a strain of peace issued to the ends of
the earth gather up his soldiers of peace? By his own blood and by his word he
has assembled an army which sheds no blood in order to give them the Kingdom of
Heaven. (Clement of Alexandria; lived 150-215 CE)
I think we must first inquire
whether warfare is proper at all for Christians. … Shall it be held lawful to
make an occupation of the sword, when the Lord proclaims that he who uses the
sword shall perish by the sword? And shall the son of peace take part in the
battle when it does not become him even to sue at law? (Tertullian; lived 160-220 CE)
There is a wonderful quotation by a Roman “pagan” on the
remarkable aversion of the Christians towards violence that would go here, but
my search engine is not returning it to me.
It appears that the great majority of the first generations of
followers of Jesus thought that he was a principled and committed pacifist. The
earliest of them would have had first hand or second hand direct knowledge of
the life and teachings of Jesus. Not all of this would have made it into the
subsequent gospels. It would, however, have formed part of the interpretive
tradition of those texts for those early generations. Pacifism was a central
and secure part of early Christian moral teaching. It was the original
understanding.
When did this change? It changed when followers of Jesus were
no longer members of a minority movement, sometimes persecuted. The time came
when Christians were advising emperors, and then when Christians were emperors.
Christian pacifism faded away when it became possible for Christians to win wars.
After the Constantine-Theodosius incorporation of
Christianity into the empire, Christians found that the teachings of Jesus not
only permitted them to take up the sword; they often required it. Some of the
bloodiest applications of this new understanding of the faith were exercised
against “heretics” – the first of the countless conflicts down the centuries in
which both hostile armies claimed that Jesus was on their side.
Of course, if the post-Theodosius interpreters of the words
of Jesus have overwhelmingly better scholarly arguments than the
pre-Constantine interpreters, then the original understanding might be wrong.
Any tie or near-tie, however, would I think have to go to the view of the early
church that Jesus was a pacifist.
There is a contrary notion, powerfully influential if rarely
stated, that the burden of proof is on those who argue that Jesus was a
pacifist – because, after all, we are
not pacifists, and the church has been anything but pacifist for all these
centuries. What are 3 centuries against 18? Unless this line of thought is
filled in with some such implausible argument as that God would not allow his
church to go astray, it is nothing more than raw prejudgment.
That completes the chief point of this post. What follows is
some detail on the arguments and counterarguments on the interpretation of what
Jesus said before and after a disciple, perhaps Peter, cut off the ear of an
agent of the authorities arresting him in Gethsemane.
The gospel text.
Mark 14:
43 And immediately, while he
yet spake, cometh Judas, one of the twelve, and with him a great multitude with
swords and staves, from the chief priests and the scribes and the elders.
* * *
46 And they laid their hands on
him, and took him.
47 And one of them that stood
by drew a sword, and smote a servant of the high priest, and cut off his ear.
48 And Jesus answered and said
unto them, Are ye come out, as against a thief, with swords and with staves to
take me?
49 I was daily with you in the
temple teaching, and ye took me not: but the scriptures must be fulfilled.
Matthew 26:
47 And, lo, Judas, one of the twelve, came, and
with him a great multitude with swords and staves, from the chief priests and
elders of the people.
* * *
50 And Jesus said unto him, Friend,
wherefore art thou come? Then came they, and laid hands on Jesus and took him.
51 And, behold, one of them which were
with Jesus stretched out his hand, and drew his sword, and struck a servant of
the high priest's, and smote off his ear.
52 Then said Jesus unto him, Put up again
thy sword into his place: for all they that take the sword shall perish with the sword.
53 Thinkest thou that I cannot now pray to
my Father, and he shall presently give me more than twelve legions of angels?
54 But how then shall the scriptures be
fulfilled, that thus it must be?
Luke 22:
36 Then said he unto them, But now, he
that hath a purse, let him take it, and likewise his scrip: and he that hath no
sword, let him sell his garment, and buy one.
37 For I say unto you, that this that is
written must yet be accomplished in me, And he was reckoned among the
transgressors: for the things concerning me have an end.
38 And they said, Lord, behold, here are
two swords. And he said unto them, It is enough.
* * *
47 And while he yet spake, behold a
multitude, and he that was called Judas, one of the twelve, went before them, …
.
* * *
49 When they which were about him saw what
would follow, they said unto him, Lord, shall we smite with the sword?
50 And one of them smote the servant of
the high priest, and cut off his right ear.
51 And Jesus answered and said, Suffer ye
thus far. And he touched his ear, and healed him.
52 Then Jesus said unto the chief priests,
and captains of the temple, and the elders, which were come to him, Be ye come
out, as against a thief, with swords and staves?
John 18:
3 Judas then, having received a band of
men and officers from the chief priests and Pharisees, cometh thither with
lanterns and torches and weapons.
4 Jesus therefore, knowing all things that
should come upon him, went forth, and said unto them, Whom seek ye?
* * *
10 Then Simon Peter having a sword drew
it, and smote the high priest's servant, and cut off his right ear. The
servant's name was Malchus.
11 Then said Jesus unto Peter, Put up thy
sword into the sheath: the cup which my Father hath given me, shall I not drink
it?
That Jesus commanded that there be swords.
First in
the relevant chronology of that night is the puzzling passage in Luke in which
Jesus first appears to command his disciples to buy swords, then learns that
there are two already in the hands of disciples, and finally says that is
sufficient. Commentators are at sixes and sevens over this passage. It may seem
odd that Jesus would issue the command to buy swords knowing, first, that he
will prevent their use in his defense, and, second, that were all the disciples
armed to the teeth, that would hardly be enough. The two swords of which he is
informed in the hands of, say, fishermen, were ludicrously insufficient.
Some
commentators have taken this all, and especially the sufficiency comment as
irony – an odd place to find irony it seems to me. A couple of commentators
take the statement of sufficiency not to be about the two swords, but simply,
“enough of this topic.”
Here is
a thought that must be in commentary somewhere, although I haven’t happened
upon it. Perhaps Jesus commanded that
there be swords, and then said that two are enough, because he wanted to make
it clear that his disciples could have offered some non-trivial resistance. He
intervened dramatically to admonish the ear cutting and to make sure there was
no other armed resistance because “that this that is written must yet be
accomplished in me.” Swords in the hands
of only two disciples were not sufficient for a successful defense, but were
sufficient to dramatize that Jesus was not going to permit any use of force to
prevent his arrest.N ot everyone would believe him that he was intentionally
refraining from calling out “twelve legions of angels”. That he prevented
disciples from using their swords everyone could see.
How does
this part of Luke bear on the pacifism question, assuming it to give at least
roughly, genuine words of Jesus. First, on the anti-pacifist side: Jesus does not
seem categorically opposed to the whole idea of weapons that could be used
against people. At least he was fine with disciples’ carrying of weapons to
create the impression that they might be so used. Moreover, although I don’t
think this counts for much, angels organized into legions doesn’t sound very pacifist.
The legions with which everyone was familiar were fabulously successful
exterminators of persons.
Second, however,
in pacifist mitigation, Jesus did not command the disciples to acquire swords
for the purpose of using them against people. He commanded their acquisition, but with no
intention that they be used. That he thought that swords would need to be
procured suggests that it was not utterly commonplace for disciples to
carry swords. The twelve legions phrase was surely just a
metaphor for God’s power, an image readily appreciated by anyone in occupied
Jerusalem. Surely no one seriously believes Jesus was suggesting that angels
would engage the agents of the high priest in swordplay.
That they that take the sword shall perish with
the sword.
Let me
now turn to the ear excision itself. It is mentioned in all four gospels and
praised in none. In Mark nothing more is said about it beyond that the ear was
cut off. In Luke Jesus answered the disciples’ question “shall we smite with
the sword?” by healing the ear that the disciple had just cut off. Matthew and
John have Jesus giving specific reprimands against the ear cutting. Both
gospels have it that the defense of Jesus against arrest ran counter to the
divine plan, the “must be.”
Matthew,
in addition, has Jesus immediately and directly upbraiding the
disciple-assailant with “for all they that take the sword shall perish with the
sword.” This has been a leading piece of
evidence on the pacifist side, and for good reason. It seems to be a
categorical denunciation of the instrumental use of deadly violence. Of course,
everyone knows that some who take up the sword die in their beds of old age.
Therefore, it must be that Jesus was here saying, if he said this, that taking
up the sword is mortal in moral or spiritual sense.
A very
common response those who are sure Jesus could not have been a pacifist is to maintain
that this declaration does not apply to defensive violence – and by extension does
not apply to “just war.” (Therefore, in practice, it almost never is found to apply.)
This contention is made difficult by the categorical
nature of the admonition and by the concrete circumstances of its utterance. The
sword-wielding disciple was protecting the life of Jesus from an irregular
arrest upon trumped up charges that would, with reasonable foreseeability, lead
just where it did lead -- to suffering and crucifixion. It seems an excellent
example of justified defense of another – even if the other were only an
ordinary person.
A better
line for those determined that Jesus not be a pacifist is to argue that it was
the divine plan that moved this case out of the justified defense
category. This does not erase Jesus’s
words, however. The strength and breadth of “all they that take the sword” is
still a problem for the non-pacifist interpreters. Jesus may have had to interfere in this case
with defense of another he would otherwise have supported. He did not have to
make this universal condemnation of taking the sword.
That Jesus permitted retention of the sword.
It is
interesting that Jesus was not taken aback that two disciples had swords. Moreover,
he commanded that the offending sword be put back into its place or into its
sheath, not that it be thrown out or broken under foot. These facts have been
offered as evidence that Jesus was at least not opposed to deadly self- defense
under some (other) circumstances.
The word, here, “μάχαιρα,” is routinely translated “sword”
in the New Testament, but it was used at that time for a long knife or dagger
as well as a short sword. A long sword, or two edged, or “Thracian,” or
military, sword was a “ῥομφαία.” This word
appears in some of the martial passages of the Book of Revelation.
The facts as related in the gospels confirm that the ear
cutting disciple was not armed with a military sword. It would take consummate
skill to sever an ear with the weapon a centurion carried without cracking the nearby
skull. Moreover, it is more than doubtful that the chief priest would have
permitted the two disciples to retain military swords. Could these short swords or long knives carried
by the two disciples be used with dangerous or deadly effect against persons?
Surely, but just as surely they had other uses. It is a stretch to interpret
Jesus as not meaning what he said in the “die by the sword” passage, that he
permitted the disciple to retain his μάχαιρα.
Conclusion.
Looking to these texts alone, I think the pacifist interpretation should
get the nod. There is nothing in the
facts recounted or the language used in the four gospels sufficient to lure us
away from the natural reading of “for all they that take the sword shall perish
with the sword.” It is not an overwhelming textual case, but it is a solid one.
When we factor in that the first generations of Christians almost certainly
interpreted it in just this way, it becomes quite good evidence that Jesus was
a pacifist.
There are, of course, other relevant parts of the gospels, for
example, the Sermon on the Mount, and particularly its “turn the other cheek,”
and, on the other side, the driving out of the merchants and money changers
from the temple. These, as well as the general deportment of Jesus, would need
to be brought in for a total assessment of the issue of Jesus and pacifism. Still,
any such assessment should give special weight to the conduct and
interpretations of the early church.
No comments:
Post a Comment