What is the Biblical and historical basis for Christian pacifism? My understanding is that early Christians were generally pacifists.  Today (at least in the U.S.) Christian pacifists are a bit hard to come by.  Many quote Romans 13:1-3 to support Christian involvement in war:


  1 Let everyone be subject to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God. 2 Consequently, whoever rebels against the authority is rebelling against what God has instituted, and those who do so will bring judgment on themselves. 3 For rulers hold no terror for those who do right, but for those who do wrong. Do you want to be free from fear of the one in authority? Then do what is right and you will be commended.


In light of this verse, and other Biblical or historical evidence, what is the case to be made for Christian pacifism?
The Biblical pacifist argument is usually founded in the Sermon on the Mount, which is held to prohibit any kind of violence (going beyond the law of Moses):

But I tell you, &quot;Do not resist an evil person. If someone strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also.&quot; (Matthew 5:39, NIV)
&quot;You have heard that it was said, 'Love your neighbor and hate your enemy.' But I tell you, love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, that you may be children of your Father in heaven. He causes his sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous. If you love those who love you, what reward will you get? Are not even the tax collectors doing that? And if you greet only your own people, what are you doing more than others? Do not even pagans do that? Be perfect, therefore, as your heavenly Father is perfect. (Matthew 5:43-48)

The Quaker philosopher Robert Barclay wrote in his Apology for the True Christian Divinity (1675), ch. 15:

Whoever can reconcile this, &quot;Resist not evil&quot;, with &quot;Resist violence by force&quot;, again, &quot;Give also thy other cheek&quot;, with &quot;Strike again&quot;; also &quot;Love thine enemies&quot;, with &quot;Spoil them, make a prey of them, pursue them with fire and the sword&quot;, or &quot;Pray for those that persecute you, and those that calumniate you&quot;, with &quot;Persecute them by fines, imprisonments and death itself&quot;, whoever, I say, can find a means to reconcile these things may be supposed also to have found a way to reconcile God with the Devil, Christ with Antichrist, Light with Darkness, and good with evil. But if this be impossible, as indeed it is impossible, so will also the other be impossible, and men do but deceive both themselves and others, while they boldly adventure to establish such absurd and impossible things.

He also appeals to John 18:36 (&quot;My kingdom is not of this world&quot;) and 2 Corinthians 10:4 (&quot;The weapons we fight with are not the weapons of this world&quot;) among other passages from the Bible, as well as from the Church Fathers (like Jerome: &quot;The Church was founded by shedding of blood, and by suffering, and not in doing of hurt. The Church increased by persecutions, and was crowned by martyrdom&quot;).
Regarding Paul's words in Romans 13, Barclay argues (in ch. 14) that the state has no authority over matters of Christian conscience. This is justified in that Paul was writing about Nero, who was not Christian, and therefore incapable of being a proper judge of what it is right for Christians to do. If Nero had unlimited authority then &quot;in doing thereof he was not to be blamed; which is enough to justify him in his persecuting of the apostles, and murdering the Christians&quot;. If Nero had asked Paul to stop preaching the gospel, and to worship the Roman gods instead, would he really have done so? In fact, Paul was imprisoned and executed instead.
Equally, in the text, Paul was advising Christians what to do when governmental authority is brought to bear against them. He is not giving carte blanche to Christians in government to do whatever they like. Barclay says:

If the magistrate be truly a Christian, or desires to be so, he ought himself in the first place to obey the command of his Master, saying, &quot;Love your enemies,&quot; &amp;c., and then he could not command us to kill them: but if he be not a true Christian, then ought we to obey our Lord and King Jesus Christ, to whom he ought also to obey: for in the Kingdom of Christ all ought to submit to his laws, from the highest to the lowest, that is, from the king to the beggar, and from Caesar to the clown.

One argument among pacifists is whether one is obliged to submit to the government's punishment for refusing to take up arms, or whether it is acceptable to, say, flee to another country. Paul's words here are sometimes quoted in support of the former position.