This realm is something that has been something of a peculiarity in all the misunderstanding and confusion as it applies to the Christian. It seems that often it has been overblown to mean something entirely different than what was intended, both as fact, that is, as things are and that which is either to be defended or not defended as the saint is concerned.
[b]Pacify
PACIFY[/b], v.t. [L., peace, and to make.]
1. To appease, as wrath or other violent passion or appetite; to calm; to still; to quiet; to allay agitation or excitement; as, to pacify a man when angry, or to pacify his wrath or rage; the word being applied both to the person and to the passion. So we say, to pacify hunger, to pacify importunate demands.
2. To restore peace to; to tranquilize; as, to pacify countries in contention.
[b]Pacifism
pac·i·fism[/b] (păs'ə-fĭz'əm)
n.
1. The belief that disputes between nations should and can be settled peacefully.
2.
A. Opposition to war or violence as a means of resolving disputes.
B. Such opposition demonstrated by refusal to participate in military action.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Before launching out here, the purpose is to just get a scriptural and honest perspective. What has always struck me sideways is this idea that the Lord Jesus was of such a mind as to oppose all violence, war, soldiers, defending ones self, on and on until He has become in our parlance a 'pacifist'. This could not be further from the truth. To be sure of being clear of what is [i]not[/i] being said, the starting point here is not one of being either crowed into or 'supporting' anything as the want is often to do, in other words, "Are you saying then that you believe...?"
No, that this may be forgotten at the onset along with the politics of our day for whatever reasons the hubris is. Rather than to add commentary alongside commentary am hopeful that some examples might draw out the matter on their own, will save my thoughts towards the end.
[b]Lam 3:30 - He giveth his cheek to him that smiteth him[/b],.... Either to God that afflicts him, and patiently bears it; see Isa_9:13; or rather to men. To be smitten on the cheek is always reckoned a very great affront; to turn the cheek to an injurious man is to give him an opportunity and leave to smite, and signifies the taking of it patiently, and agrees both with our Lord's advice and example, Mat_5:39;
[b]Mat 5:39 - But I say unto you, that ye resist not evil[/b],.... This is not to be understood of any sort of evil, not of the evil of sin, of bad actions, and false doctrines, which are to be opposed; nor of the evil one, Satan, who is to be resisted; but of an evil man, an injurious one, who has done us an injury. We must not render evil for evil, or repay him in the same way; see Jam_5:6. Not but that a man may lawfully defend himself, and endeavour to secure himself from injuries; and may appear to the civil magistrate for redress of grievances; but he is not to make use of private revenge. As if a man should pluck out one of his eyes, he must not in revenge pluck out one of his; or should he strike out one of his teeth, he must not use him in the same manner; but patiently bear the affront, or seek for satisfaction in another way.
[b]But whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also[/b]: which is to be understood comparatively, rather than seek revenge, and is directly contrary to the Jewish canons, which require, in such a case, a pecuniary fine (g).
"He that strikes his neighbour (which Maimonides explains, he that strikes his neighbour with his hand shut, about the neck) he shall give him a "sela", or "shekel": R. Judah says, in the name of R. Jose the Galilean, one pound: if he smite him (i.e. as Maimonides says, if he smite him with his double fist upon the face; or, as Bartenora, with the palm of his hand, לחיי, "on the cheek", which is a greater reproach) he shall give him two hundred "zuzim"; and if he does it with the back of his hand, four hundred "zuzim".''
R. Isaac Sangari (h) manifestly refers to this passage of Christ's, when he says to the king he is conversing with,
"I perceive that thou up braidest us with poverty and want; but in them the great men of other nations glory: for they do not glory but in him, who said, "Whosoever smiteth thee thy right cheek, turn to him the left; and whosoever taketh away thy coat, give him thy cloak".''
(g) Misn. Bava Kama, c. 8. sect. 6. Vid. Maimon. & Bartenora in ib. (h) Sepher Cosri, Orat. 1. Sign. 113. fol. 56. 1.
John Gill
[b]Mat 5:39 -
Resist not evil[/b] - Or, the evil person. So, I am fully persuaded, τω πονηρω ought to be translated. Our Lord’s meaning is, “Do not repel one outrage by another.” He that does so makes himself precisely what the other is, a wicked person.
[b]Turn to him the other also[/b] - That is, rather than avenge thyself, be ready to suffer patiently a repetition of the same injury. But these exhortations belong to those principally who are persecuted for righteousness’ sake. Let such leave the judgment of their cause to Him for whose sake they suffer. The Jews always thought that every outrage should be resented; and thus the spirit of hatred and strife was fostered.
Adam Clarke
[b]Mat 5:38-41 -
An eye for an eye[/b] ... - This command is found in Exo_21:24; Lev_24:20, and Deu_19:21. In these places it was given as a rule to regulate the decisions of judges. They were to take eye for eye, and tooth for tooth, and to inflict burning for burning. As a judicial rule it is not unjust. Christ finds no fault with the rule as applied to magistrates, and does not take upon himself to repeal it. But instead of confining it to magistrates, the Jews had extended it to private conduct, and made it the rule by which to take revenge. They considered themselves justified by this rule to inflict the same injury on others that they had received. Our Saviour remonstrates against this. He declares that the law had no reference to private revenge, that it was given only to regulate the magistrate, and that their private conduct was to be governed by different principles.
The general principle which he laid down was, that we are not to resist evil; that is, as it is in the Greek, nor to set ourselves against an evil person who is injuring us. But even this general direction is not to be pressed too strictly. Christ did not intend to teach that we are to see our families murdered, or be murdered ourselves; rather than to make resistance. The law of nature, and all laws, human and divine, justify self-defense when life is in danger. It cannot surely be the intention to teach that a father should sit by coolly and see his family butchered by savages, and not be allowed to defend them. Neither natural nor revealed religion ever did, or ever can, inculcate this doctrine. Our Saviour immediately explains what he means by it. Had he intended to refer it to a case where life is in danger, he would most surely have mentioned it. Such a case was far more worthy of statement than those which he did mention.
A doctrine so unusual, so unlike all that the world had believed. and that the best people had acted on, deserved to be formally stated. Instead of doing this, however, he confines himself to smaller matters, to things of comparatively trivial interest, and says that in these we had better take wrong than to enter into strife and lawsuits. The first case is where we are smitten on the cheek. Rather than contend and fight, we should take it patiently, and turn the other cheek. This does not, however, prevent our remonstrating firmly yet mildly on the injustice of the thing, and insisting that justice should be done us, as is evident from the example of the Saviour himself. See Joh_18:23. {[i]Jesus answered him, If I have spoken evil, bear witness of the evil: but if well, why smitest thou me?[/i]} The second evil mentioned is where a man is litigious and determined to take all the advantage the law can give him, following us with vexatious and expensive lawsuits. Our Saviour directs us, rather than to imitate him rather than to contend with a revengeful spirit in courts of justice to take a trifling injury, and yield to him. This is merely a question about property, and not about conscience and life.
[b]Coat[/b] - The Jews wore two principal garments, an interior and an exterior. The interior, here called the “coat,” or the tunic, was made commonly of linen, and encircled the whole body, extending down to the knees. Sometimes beneath this garment, as in the case of the priests, there was another garment corresponding to pantaloons. The coat, or tunic, was extended to the neck. and had long or short sleeves. Over this was commonly worn an upper garment, here called “cloak,” or mantle. It was made commonly nearly square, of different sizes, 5 or 6 cubits long and as many broad, and was wrapped around the body, and was thrown off when labor was performed. If, said Christ, an adversary wished to obtain, at law, one of these garments, rather than contend with him let him have the other also. A reference to various articles of apparel occurs frequently in the New Testament, and it is desirable to have a correct view of the ancient mode of dress. in order to a proper understanding of the Bible. The Asiatic modes of dress are nearly the same from age to age, and hence it is not difficult to illustrate the passages where such a reference occurs. The ordinary dress consisted of the inner garment, the outer garment, the girdle (belt), and the sandals. In regard to the sandals, see the notes at Mat_3:11.
In the girdle (belt) was the place of the pouch Mat_10:9, and to it the sword and dirk were commonly attached. Compare 2Sa_20:8. In modern times the pistols are also fastened to the belt. It is the usual place for the handkerchief, smoking materials, inkhorn, and, in general, the implements of one’s profession. The belt served to confine the loose-flowing robe or outer garment to the body. It held the garment when it was tucked up, as it was usually in walking or in labor. Hence, “to gird up the loins” became a significant figurative expression, denoting readiness for service, activity, labor, and watchfulness; and “to loosen the loins” denoted the giving way to repose and indolence, 2Ki_4:29; Job_38:3; Isa_5:27; Luk_12:35; Joh_21:7.
[b]Whosoever shall compel thee to go a mile[/b] - The word translated “shall compel” is of Persian origin. Post-offices were then unknown. In order that the royal commands might be delivered with safety and despatch in different parts of the empire, Cyrus stationed horsemen at proper intervals on all the great public highways. One of those delivered the message to another, and intelligence was thus rapidly and safely communicated. These heralds were permitted to compel any person, or to press any horse, boat, ship, or other vehicle that they might need for the quick transmission of the king’s commandments. It was to this custom that our Saviour refers. Rather, says he, than resist a public authority requiring your attendance and aid for a certain distance, go peaceably twice the distance.
[b]A mile[/b] - A Roman mile was 1,000 paces.
[b]Twain[/b] - Two.
Albert Barnes
[b]Mat 5:44 - But I say unto you, love your enemies,....[/b] That is, as the Apostle Paul may be thought to interpret the words of Christ, Rom_12:20. "If thine enemy hunger, feed him: if he thirst, give him drink": unless our Lord should be supposed rather to regard the internal affection of the mind; since outward expressions of love, by words and works, are urged in the following exhortations: the actions of a man may be hated, and just indignation be expressed against them, and yet his person be loved, tenderness be used to him, and pity shown him: all men, even enemies, are to be loved with a natural love, as men; though they cannot be loved with a spiritual affection, as brethren in Christ: and in natural affection there are degrees, according to the relation and circumstances that persons stand in to one another.
[b]Bless them that curse you[/b]: when wicked men curse you, as Shimei cursed David, do not "render evil for evil, or railing for railing, but contrariwise, blessing"; give good words, use kind language, mild and soft expressions; such as may either win upon them, or put them to shame and silence: "bless, and curse not"; the latter belongs to them, the former to you; "let them curse, but bless thou": curses better fit their mouths, and blessings thine. Blessing here, does not signify praising them, for that would be sinful, which is sometimes the sense of the word; nor wishing, or praying for a blessing on them, which is right and good; but this is mentioned afterwards, as distinct from blessing; wherefore, it is better to understand it of a sweet and engaging address unto, and behaviour and conduct towards such, whose mouths are full of cursing and bitterness.
[b]Do good to them that hate you[/b]; such as hate you in their hearts, and discover their hatred by their actions; do not make returns in the same way, but on the contrary, do them all the good you can; perform all the kind offices that lie in your power; let them partake of your bounty and liberality; if poor, feed, clothe, and supply them, as you are able, with the necessaries of life; and give them wholesome advice for the good of their souls: by "so doing", you will "heap coals of fire on their heads"; of enemies, make them friends; engage their affections to you, and you may be happy instruments in doing them good, both in soul and body:
[b]and pray for them that despitefully use you and persecute you.[/b] What Christ here commands and advises to, he himself did; for as he hung upon the cross, he prayed for his crucifiers, who were then using him in the most despiteful, as well as cruel manner; saying, "Father, forgive them, for they know not what they do": and in this he has left us an example, that we should tread in his steps; and here in he was quickly followed by his holy martyr Stephen; who, whilst he was being stoned, prayed for his persecutors and murderers, saying, "Lord, lay not this sin to their charge". This breathes out the true spirit of Christianity, and is peculiar to it. The whole of this is directly opposite to the tenets of the Jews, particularly the Scribes and Pharisees; who allowed of revenge, and keeping anger against any person that had done them an injury, as has been observed: and which were also the sentiments of the Karaites, or Scripturarians, another sect among them who kept to the letter of the Scriptures, and rejected the traditions of the elders, which the Pharisees held: but in this they agreed with them,
"that it was right to do good to their friends, and to forgive them that asked pardon of them; but to such men who rendered evil, and did not return to do well, that they might receive forgiveness, אינו אסור לנקום ולנטור מהם, "it is not forbidden to revenge, and to keep anger against them" (s).''
It is indeed said (t) of their former holy men, חסידים, "Hasideans", which some have thought to be the same with the "Essenes", and a sort of Christians; however, were a better sort of Jews; that these
"heard their reproach, but did not return it; and not only so, but they pardoned him that reproached them, and forgave him.''
And it is reported of these men, that they used to pray to God to pardon and forgive all that disturbed them. But the Pharisees, whom Christ had to do with, and against whom he inveighs, were men of another complexion.
(s) R. Eliahu in Adderet, c. 3. apud Trigland. de Sect. Karaeorum, c. 10. p. 166, 167. (t) Maimon. Hilch. Talmud Tora. c. 7. sect. 13.
John Gill
Luk 22:36 [i]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.[/i] Luk 22:38 [i] And they said, Lord, behold, here are two swords. And he said unto them, It is enough.[/i]
[b]Luk 22:36 -
But now[/b] - The Saviour says the times are changed. “Before,” he sent them out only for a little time. They were in their own country. Their journeys would be short, and there was no need that they should make preparation for a long absence, or for encountering great dangers. But “now” they were to go into the wide world, among strangers, trials, dangers, and wants. And as the time was near; as he was about to die; as these dangers pressed on, it was proper that they should make provision for what was before them.
[b]A purse[/b] - See the notes at Mat_10:9. He intimates that they should “now” take money, as it would be necessary to provide for their wants in traveling.
Scrip - See the notes at Mat_10:10.
[b]And he that hath no sword[/b] - There has been much difficulty in understanding why Jesus directed his disciples to arm themselves, as if it was his purpose to make a defense. It is certain that the spirit of his religion is against the use of the sword, and that it was not his purpose to defend himself against Judas. But it should be remembered that these directions about the purse, the scrip, and the sword were not made with reference to his “being taken” in the garden, but with reference “to their future life.” The time of the trial in Gethsemane was just at hand; nor was there “time” then, if no other reason existed, to go and make the purchase. It altogether refers to their future life. They were going into the midst of dangers. The country was infested with robbers and wild beasts. It was customary to go armed. He tells them of those dangers - of the necessity of being prepared in the usual way to meet them. This, then, is not to be considered as a specific, positive “command” to procure a sword, but an intimation that great dangers were before them; that their manner of life would be changed, and that they would need the provisions “appropriate to that kind of life.” The “common” preparation for that manner of life consisted in money, provisions, and arms; and he foretells them of that manner of life by giving them directions commonly understood to be appropriate to it. It amounts, then, to a “prediction” that they would soon leave the places which they had been accustomed to, and go into scenes of poverty, want, and danger, where they would feel the necessity of money, provisions, and the means of defense. All, therefore, that the passage justifies is:
1.\tThat it is proper for people to provide beforehand for their wants, and for ministers and missionaries as well as any others.
2.\tThat self-defense is lawful.
Men encompassed with danger may lawfully “defend” their lives. It does not prove that it is lawful to make “offensive” war on a nation or an individual.
[b]Luk 22:38[/b] -
[b]Are two swords[/b] - The Galileans, it is said, often went armed. The Essenes did so also. The reason was that the country was full of robbers and wild beasts, and it was necessary to carry, in their travels, some means of defense. It seems that the disciples followed the customs of the country, and had with them some means of defense, though they had but two swords among the twelve.
[b]It is enough[/b] - It is difficult to understand this. Some suppose that it is spoken “ironically;” as if he had said, “You are bravely armed indeed, with two swords among twelve men, and to meet such a host!” Others, that he meant to reprove them for understanding him “literally,” as if he meant that they were then to procure swords for “immediate” battle. As if he had said, “This is absurd, or a perversion of my meaning. I did not intend this, but merely to foretell you of impending dangers after my death.” It is to be observed that he did not say “the two swords are enough,” but “it is enough;” perhaps meaning simply, enough has been said. Other matters press on, and you will yet understand what I mean.
Albert Barnes
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Already a picture can be formed of intention and [i]application[/i] as it were. The largest part of the understanding centering around the ideal of taking revenge, not defense as if there was to be none and certainly not of loving our enemies as a matter of course, generalities of a certain pacifism towards war that must be fought.
Next up, war, soldiers, commanders, what Jesus thought and expressed towards it all.
