A time for love and a time for hate; a time for war and a time for peace

A time for love and a time for hate; a time for war and a time for peace is a biblical expression that the women of Molotschna use to test what their faith requires of them. In the debate over whether to leave the colony, Ona Friesen turns its opposing terms into a question about scripture and violence; Mejal Loewen’s answer reframes departure as a choice for love and peace. The expression matters not as a simple command, but as a contested resource for interpreting faith outside the authority of the men who claim to speak for it.

Biblical Language in the Debate

Ona introduces the expression by citing Ecclesiastes: she names a time for love and hate, and a time for war and peace. She then asks whether the women believe in the possibility of hate and war. Agata Friesen answers that they do not. The exchange distinguishes the words found in scripture from the conduct the women are willing to embrace: acknowledging that the text contains these contrasts does not mean choosing violence or retaliation. The women are discussing their response to years of attacks in the colony. The perpetrators have been identified as men from Molotschna, and the women have little time to organize their decision. The bishop’s position makes forgiveness part of the pressure: if the women refuse it, they may have to leave. Against that background, the expression’s paired opposites make the meaning of leaving a question of moral interpretation, not merely a practical choice between staying and going.

Who Interprets Scripture

The exchange also unfolds amid an argument about who has the right to explain the Bible. Salome Friesen argues that women have been taught to submit to their husbands through interpretations handed down by men, while women themselves cannot read the text. Ona identifies that inability as a serious disadvantage in any negotiation over biblical meaning. The expression therefore carries a particular tension: the women reason from a scriptural phrase while recognizing that their access to scripture and authority to interpret it have been restricted. Ona’s question does not settle the meaning of the passage by itself. Instead, it opens the interpretive work to the women gathered in the loft. Agata’s rejection of war and hate, and Mejal’s later answer about love and peace, make the women’s own ethical judgments part of that work. The episode contrasts the authority claimed by male interpreters with a collective reading grounded in the women’s commitments to nonviolence and care.

Leaving as a Time for Peace

When Ona asks how God might define the women’s departure, Mejal answers that it could be a time for love and peace. Ona responds with visible delight, clapping her hands; Salome smiles. The brief exchange turns the expression from a list of opposing possibilities into a way of naming the women’s intended course. Leaving is not presented here as an endorsement of war or hatred, but as an effort to choose peace under conditions in which remaining could expose them to further conflict. Agata develops that reasoning through Mennonite pacifism. She argues that staying would put the women on a course toward violence, whether directed against them or committed by them, and could make the colony a battlefield. Leaving, by contrast, would help them uphold pacifism, love, and forgiveness without making forgiveness a forced condition of remaining. She also presents departure as a lesson for the children: these values should take precedence over their fathers’ expectations.

Forgiveness, Distance, and the Expression’s Stakes

The expression resonates with the women’s distinction between genuine forgiveness and compliance demanded by authority. Ona argues that forgiveness is empty if it is not heartfelt, and that the women’s responsibility is to protect their souls rather than satisfy what Peters or the men expect. She allows that understanding, pity, and love may become possible from a distance. Agata takes up that idea, describing distance as a perspective from which compassion and fidelity to faith can coexist. In this reasoning, leaving creates room for forgiveness without requiring the women to remain in the setting of the conflict. The debate gives the expression a practical consequence without reducing it to a slogan. Its language helps the women ask whether peace means submission to an imposed settlement or the choice to move away from violence; whether forgiveness can be demanded, or must remain an act of conscience. Mejal’s formulation of departure as a time for love and peace marks a moment of shared understanding, while the wider discussion shows that this understanding has been reached through disagreement over scripture, authority, safety, and the women’s obligations to their children.