Second–these are doubtless not all the passages that could be cited, but I think they make a representative sample:

Matt. 26:51-2, “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. 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.”

Luke 22:36-8, “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. 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. And they said, Lord, behold, here are two swords. And he said unto them, It is enough.” [You can find Prof. Work’s discussion of this passage, which rings true to me, here.]

John 18:10-11, “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. 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?”

Rom. 12:18, “If it be possible, as much as lieth in you, live peaceably with all men.”

Rom. 13:4, “For he is the minister of God to thee for good. But if thou do that which is evil, be afraid; for he beareth not the sword in vain: for he is the minister of God, a revenger to execute wrath upon him that doeth evil.”

Rev. 13:10, “He that leadeth into captivity shall go into captivity: he that killeth with the sword must be killed with the sword. Here is the patience and the faith of the saints.”

OK. I am absolutely not a scholar of Scripture, so I’m going to speculate and throw out questions rather than pronouncing here. So: Those who take the sword will die by the sword. This is said twice, once by Jesus Himself and once in Revelations. But there are a lot of possible things that could be going on here. The context of the Revelations verse strongly implies that the one who “leads into captivity” and “kills with the sword” is, if he is to be identified with any earthly power at all, then certainly an earthly power in league with the beast, who in the preceding verses has it “given unto him to make war with the saints, and to overcome them: and power was given him over all kindreds, and tongues, and nations.” However, there is no explicit connection–the verse about captivity and the sword may serve as a divider between two passages about beasts, rather than a connective statement. Professor Work glancingly refers to Revelations as “a pacifist text,” but doesn’t expand on that, which may mean that he is (in my view appropriately) leery of drawing political/ethical conclusions too quickly or directly from an extraordinarily wild and woolly prophetic book.

Jesus’s statement, it seems to me, may mean any of the following (or more than one, of course): 1) He did not come to start a violent uprising but to die on the Cross; to incite a riot would lead to the deaths of His followers and would stand as a rejection of the Crucifixion, in which many prophecies were fulfilled. This is the most “limited” reading, placing this statement in the context of Christ’s mission on earth and the fulfillment of particular prophecies, as with the passage in which He calls the disciples to get a sword. In this reading, and possibly in the Revelations passage as well, “those who take up the sword die by the sword” is descriptive rather than prescriptive–it tells what does or will happen when violence is used at certain crucial historical junctures. 2) Those who mete out only justice, rather than mercy, to their fellow men will receive only justice rather than mercy from their Father. Theologically this seems to separate God’s justice and His mercy in a way that is incoherent and wrong. Moreover, it’s not clear (see below) that warmaking actually does require meting out only justice rather than mercy. 3) It’s possible there is no parallel construction in the statement–the first “sword” could be the literal sword of battle whereas the second “sword” is condemnation from God. This is the best pacifist reading, but I don’t think it’s required by the text.

A smaller question: Why all the qualifying phrases in Rom. 12:18? This actually does sound rather like “It is better to marry than to burn,” of which more presently. To my mind, this sounds like pacifism as a vocation for some rather than for all. Why am I wrong?

Basically, I believe that very little in Scripture is transparent. Sola Scriptura is simply impossible (more on this presently!). Different passages require different degrees and kinds of interpretive infrastructure. There are passages like the one in which Christ tells His followers to get a sword, in which Jesus pretty much says, “Hey! Interpret this in light of prophecy!” There are passages like John 6:53, “Unless ye eat the flesh…”, in which the whole surrounding context (Christ repeats this, emphasizes it, loses followers over it, etc.) screams, “Take me seriously! This is a huge deal, and it probably means something enormous and robust!” (That context, more than the simple citation of Jesus’s words, makes me believe that the Real Presence in the Eucharist is not just philosophically and symbolically justified–it’s also hammered on in Scripture.) However, most of the Gospels’ text does not come with this kind of built-in interpretive framework; we need to look to theology, and to the interpretive traditions of Christian faith and practice that should shape and correct that theology, in order to figure out what’s going on.

On a personal note, I have this strong sense of reliance on tradition and its handmaid theology because I first read the Bible before I became Christian. The Bible alone, shorn of explicit traditional frameworks (though every Bible has an implicit framework, simply because some books are included and others excluded), is a confusing jumble. Readers are likely to interpret it in one of three ways, or some combination: “The Bible says what I want to be true,” “The Bible says what my culture tells me it says,” or, “Every word of the Bible must be taken absolutely literally in the strictest fundamentalist sense.” The “fundamentalist” interpretive method produces as many rejecters of God as fundamentalists, since the transition from the latter to the former is swift and clear. The weirdest example of that transition: An atheist friend of a friend claimed he had “converted” a Christian to atheism by pointing out that “the mustard-seed isn’t the smallest seed!” Similarly, there are sites all over the Web that claim to “debunk” the Bible, generally by refusing to allow any subtlety or interpretation on the part of believers. This is why “fundamentalism,” in my view, is basically a modern movement, sprung as much from Enlightenment atheists as from Bible-thumpers. (And “fundamentalism,” of the Christian or atheist variety, represents a sharp break from the Jewish traditions of Biblical understanding.)

I don’t think Professor Work disagrees with any of that, actually. He’s stated, “I still trust the Church that wrote, received, trusted, and canonized Matthew and Luke” more than he trusts some hypothetical Ur-Gospel and more than he trusts the non-canonical books of Thomas, etc. I’m saying all this about Biblical interpretation in order to put in perspective my reliance on the tradition of the Church. I also very much agree with Peter Nixon’s comment, “In the end, it is precisely because of the complicated nature of this dispute that I am drawn back to my faith as a Catholic in the Tradition of the Church.” I think that the Catholic-style “just war” interpretive tradition is stronger than a pacifist tradition for three basic reasons: a) I’m Catholic for other reasons–this is the unhelpful reason!, b) I think the supporting theology is good, of which slightly more presently, and c) most relevantly, I disagree with Professor Work that there’s a sharp break at the advent of Constantine, after which the Christian tradition fractures or becomes corrupted when it comes to the use of force. I’ll explain my reason for c) below, under the heading, LIVES OF THE SAINTS. C) is the place where I think dialogue might most fruitfully proceed.