Plow Creek Mennonite Church     |      home     |      Mission     |      Site Outlinelogo
  Jim's Peacemaking    |    Jim Fitz's Colombia Reports   |  War tax resistance testimony  |
Parable of the AK-47     |   Bible Pacifism

Answers to objections to Christian Pacifism

(This page is a work in progress.  Please email me, foxvog(at)plowcreek.org, more objections and, if you have them, answers.)
1) "Thou shalt not kill" means "Thou shalt not murder."
2a) Jesus ordered his disciples to arm themselves.
2b) Peter was not ordered to dispose of his sword.
3) "Turn the other cheek" refers to insults only, not attack.
4) To not use deadly force to defend my family would be in direct disobedience to the Scriptural admonition to provide for our relatives.

5) God commanded Israel to war several times



Objection 1) You have apparently bought-in to the King James mis-translation - "thou shalt not kill" - off the Scripture that is accurately translated from the Hebrew - "thou shalt not commit murder."
The use of deadly force in self-defense or in defense of an innocent third party is never murder.

Response 1)   I totally agree that the "thou shalt not kill" of the ten commandments does not rule out killing in self-defense, war or capital punishment.  The context, God following up with commands for the death penalty, and shortly thereafter directing the invasion of Palestine, makes that clear.  It makes me cringe when I see that quote at an anti-death penalty event.



Objection 2a)

Jesus, himself, ordered his disciples to arm themselves for self-defense prior his impending departure from this earth in Luke 22: 35-38...
35 Then Jesus asked them, "When I sent you without purse, bag or sandals, did you lack anything?" "Nothing," they answered.
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.
37 It is written: 'And he was numbered with the transgressors'; and I tell you that this must be fulfilled in me. Yes, what is written about me is reaching its fulfillment."
38 The disciples said, "See, Lord, here are two swords." "That is enough," he replied.

Response 2) I know of two main lines of explanations of this episode.  As scripture often has multiple meanings, there may be truth in both.

        1. Jesus is speaking metaphorically.
John Wesley's commentary: It is plain, this is not to be taken literally.  It only means, This will be a time of extreme danger.

Family New Testament notes: a figurative mode of warning the apostles that great difficulties and trials awaited them,  which would require them to be like armed warriors,  ready for the conflict.

Peoples New Testament notes: Not to be taken literally,  but a striking way of saying that enemies upon every side will assail them.

Robertsons NT Word pictures:  They are to expect persecution and bitter hostility (John 15:18-21). Jesus does not mean that his disciples are to repel force by force,  but that they are to be ready to defend his cause against attack.  Changed conditions bring changed needs. This language can be misunderstood as it was then.

        2. To fulfill prophecy, to be  "numbered with the transgressors."  The disciples could honestly be charged with resisting arrest, and so were literally "transgressors". Two swords is enough to fulfill the prophecy.   Not enough to defend against Jesus' arrest.
But more likely, in v.38, Jesus is saying, "enough of this conversation -- you still are not understanding that I am speaking of spiritual things, not material."  In other words, "enough of this nonsense!"

2 Corinthians 10:4  For the weapons of our warfare are not carnal, but mighty through God to the pulling down of strongholds

Objection 2b) The principle is simple to understand: While Jesus was walking with his disciples, his enemies were afraid to attack them because they recognized his power. But he was physically leaving them and he told them to arm themselves with swords - the handguns of his day - to defend themselves.

This is confirmed in the account of Jesus' arrest in Matthew 26:51-53...
Then the men stepped forward, seized Jesus and arrested him.  With that, one of Jesus' companions reached for his sword, drew it out and struck the servant of the high priest, cutting off his ear.  "Put your sword back in its place," Jesus said to him, "for all who draw the sword will die by the sword. 53 Do you think I cannot call on my Father, and he will at once put at my disposal more than twelve legions of angels?
Note that Jesus specifically instructed Peter to put his sword back in its place. He did not express shock that Peter had a sword with him, nor did he order Peter to dispose of the sword. He was chastizing Peter for using his sword in the wrong manner and at the wrong time.

Response 2b) Maybe.  This is certainly a possible interpretation at first glance.  Jesus starts the discussion with reference to sending them out.  But -- there is certainly no evidence that Jesus' followers did this on any missions, not in the book of Acts, the epistles, or in any other early Christian writing that I know of.  A scripture passage needs to be interpreted in light of other scripture.  This would be quite contradictory to other New Testament teaching [See my Bible Pacifism page for more scriptures] or the practice or interpretation of the pre-Constantinian church.

Does this really confirm that Jesus wanted them to arm themselves to defend themselves?  Not when Jesus rebuked Peter.

"Christ, in disarming Peter, unbelted every soldier." – Tertullian, de Idololatria 19

(More from early Christians below.)

The criticism given by Jesus is not "the wrong manner and at the wrong time."  Notice the "all who draw the sword will die by the sword"?  Jesus is speaking of Peter who drew his sword in defense of his Lord. The "all" makes this a general principle.  But it is not what we observe literally in self-defense or in warfare.  Some who use the deadly weapons do not physically die.  Was Jesus just wrong? I do not believe it.  But Jesus is more concerned about spiritual life, about eternal life.  "Those who draw the sword will die [an eternal, spiritual death] by [the act of using] the sword," is what fits.  This is because using the sword is a rejection of trust in God, who alone can save us, which is all that can give us eternal life.

In Luke, Jesus is recorded as giving an additional rebuke:
22.51 But Jesus said, "No more of this!" And he touched his ear and healed him.
This might just be to Peter for the situation in the garden.  But it might be for all of us who seek to obey Jesus -- no more of this violent self-defense or violent defense of those close and dear to us.

The testimony of the early church, as far as I know, is unanimous against violence of any sort.  If you know of any counter-examples, let me know. 

For example Hippolytus, Church Order in The Apostolic Tradition - about 218 a.d. (p. 90  in The Early Christians  [ 1.3 MB pdf; an excellent reference to have - I am referring to page numbers on the bottom of the page, not pages of the .pdf document.])
        A military constable must be forbidden to kill.  If he is commanded to kill in the course of his duty, he must not take this upon himself, neither may he swear; if he is not willing to follow these instructions he must be rejected.  A proconsul or a civic magistrate who wears the purple and governs by the sword shall give it up or be rejected.  Anyone taking part in baptismal instruction, or anyone already baptized who wants to become a soldier shall be sent away, for he has despised God.
or Athenagoras, A Plea Regarding Christians, (p. 100 of The Early Christians)
        [We] are not even allowed to hit back when struck and are expected to use only kind words when reviled! To be just alone is not enough because to be just means to repay like for like, but we have been commanded to go far beyond this, to be kind and patient.

or Tertullian, On Idolatry 19 (The Early Christians, p. 268)
A summary by Douglas P Lackey
The early Christians, living when the New Testament was being written and shortly afterward, thought that Jesus’s teaching was perfectly unambiguous. He did not permit meeting violence with violence. (This was Saint Paul’s understanding, as he emphasizes in the 12th chapter of Romans.) Tertullian, quoting another of Jesus’s sayings, wrote: “Can it be lawful to handle the sword, when the Lord himself has declared that he who uses the sword shall perish by it?”


Objection 3) You are probably thinking, "but Jesus said to turn the other cheek," and you are correct. When someone slaps us on the cheek (or insults us or belittles our faith or ridicules our church) we should physically or figuratively turn the other cheek so that we can be a witness for Christ. These verses (Matthew 5:3    9 and Luke 6:29) absolutely do not, however, mean that I should stand b and "turn the other cheek" while someone kidnaps or cripples my child or rapes or murders my wife.

Response 3)
Matthew 5
38  "You have heard that it was said, ‘An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth.’
39 But I say to you, Do not resist an evildoer. But if anyone strikes you on the right cheek, turn the other also;
40 and if anyone wants to sue you and take your coat, give your cloak as well;
41 and if anyone forces you to go one mile, go also the second mile.
42 Give to everyone who begs from you, and do not refuse anyone who wants to borrow from you.
43  "You have heard that it was said, ‘You shall love your neighbor and hate your enemy.’
44 But I say to you, Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you,
45 so that you may be children of your Father in heaven; for he makes his sun rise on the evil and on the good, and sends rain on the righteous and on the unrighteous.
46 For if you love those who love you, what reward do you have? Do not even the tax collectors do the same?
47 And if you greet only your brothers and sisters, what more are you doing than others? Do not even the Gentiles do the same?
48 Be perfect, therefore, as your heavenly Father is perfect.

Luke 6
27  "But I say to you that listen, Love your enemies, do good to those who hate you,
28 bless those who curse you, pray for those who abuse you.
29 If anyone strikes you on the cheek, offer the other also; and from anyone who takes away your coat do not withhold even your shirt.
30 Give to everyone who begs from you; and if anyone takes away your goods, do not ask for them again.
31 Do to others as you would have them do to you.
32 "If you love those who love you, what credit is that to you? For even sinners love those who love them.
33 If you do good to those who do good to you, what credit is that to you? For even sinners do the same.
34 If you lend to those from whom you hope to receive, what credit is that to you? Even sinners lend to sinners, to receive as much again.
35 But love your enemies, do good, and lend, expecting nothing in return. Your reward will be great, and you will be children of the Most High; for he is kind to the ungrateful and the wicked.

Mat 5.39 says "Do not resist an evildoer. But if anyone strikes you on the right cheek, turn the other also."  An evildoer here is in the context of ‘An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth.’  This is referring to God's law:
Leviticus 24:19-20 Anyone who maims another shall suffer the same injury in return: fracture for fracture, eye for eye, tooth for tooth; the injury inflicted is the injury to be suffered.
Jesus is quoting the scripture, which he takes very seriously, and deliberately changing God's law.
Mat 7.28-29 Now when Jesus had finished saying these things, the crowds were astounded at his teaching,  for he taught them as one having authority, and not as their scribes.
So the evildoer that Jesus is commanding his disciples not to resist is one who is attempting to do them serious personal injury.  The evildoers are also rightly called "your enemies."

Jesus gives more detail on what he means in the context of these passages. "Love your enemies; do good to those who hate you."  "  How could you practice love in such a situation?  Not easily, I know, but that should be the goal.   What would "doing good" look like?  Trying to prevent the guilt of committing a grievous sin would be "doing good" only if the action taken would not be expected to cause serious harm to him who hates you.

Do to others as you would have others do to you. "  If somehow you (being seized by a demon, or a mental breakdown maybe?)  were one committing the kidnapping, harming, raping, or murdering how would you "have others do to you"?  Attempt to stop with non-injurious means.  If someone is trying to harm someone I love (who should we love? See Luke 6.35 above) I hope I would get in the way, offer myself as a substitute victim, if I could not stop the violence all together.  

Note that the love commanded toward enemies is agapate, the verb form of agapeAgape is described in detail in 1 Corinthians 13, including v.7
[Agape love] bears all things, believes all things, hopes all things, endures all things.
Meditate on how this applies to the enemy, the one who hates you, the one who (wants to, will, or has) do harm to you or those you are close to emotionally.

Objection 4) To not use deadly force to defend my family would be in direct disobedience to another Scriptural admonition,

I Timothy 5:8...If anyone does not provide for his relatives, and especially for his immediate family, he has denied the faith and is worse than an unbeliever. How can I say that I am "providing for" my wife and daughter if I do not do every lawful thing  to protect them from criminal assaults? Simply, I couldn't and I would be, in the words of the King James Version of this verse, "worse than an infidel."

Response 4)
"Lawful thing" to a Christian means by the law of Christ.  Christ's law is love for the enemy.  So that means do everything I can do in love for the enemy.

The context of 1Timothy 5.8, the verses both proceeding and following, is the church caring for widows.  Strong's Exhaustive Concordance gives this definition of the Greek used for "provide," pronoei:
AV-provide for 2, provide 1; 3
1) to perceive before, foresee
2) to provide, think of beforehand
2a) to provide for one
2b) to take thought for, care for a thing

There is no hint in this word of using violence.  In fact the same Greek word for provide is used in Romans 12.17:
 Recompense to no man evil for evil. Provide things honest in the sight of all men. (KJV)
Here it is in direct contrast to paying back evil (harm) for evil (harm).

This verse in Timothy says that people should support their aged mother or grandmother, not leave it to the church to take care of them. An important command, but there is nothing about violently resisting criminal assault here.

Objeciton 5) God commanded Israel to war several times
Response 5)  Yes, He did.  But our county (whichever is our country) is not Biblical Israel.  God has not commanded us to war.  But primarily, Jesus changed this.
 "You have heard that it was said, ‘You shall love your neighbor and hate your enemy.’ But I say to you, Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you,