Was Jesus a Pacifist?
The idea of pacifism has been on my mind lately for two reasons: 1) with the elections I heard a lot of talk about the war in Iraq and how it is hypocritical for believers to support war and yet oppose abortion; 2) I’ve been reading a few authors lately that argue that Jesus was a pacifist and that we must adopt this stance as believers. So I’ve been reading the Bible lately with a filter for pacifism. In my reading this morning I came across three passages where it appears that Jesus is anything but a pacifist. This is not a researched list, this is simply three examples from four chapters that I read today.
Jesus tells a story of a king and his people called the Parable of the Ten Minas (Luke 19:11-27). He ends the parable in verse 27: “But those enemies of mine who did not want me to be king over them–bring them here and kill them in front of me.” That sounds pretty harsh. Not just to kill them, but “kill them in front of me.”
Jesus tells a story of a man who owned a vineyard called The Parable of the Tenants (Luke 20:9-16). He ends the parable in verse 16: “What then will the owner of the vineyard do to them? He will come and kill those tenants and give the vineyard to others.” Again, a pacifist could evict the tenants or fine them, but He says to kill them.
Finally, as Jesus prepares Himself and His disciples for His capture, He tells them how to get ready in Luke 22:36. “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.” This is an odd verse especially given that He rebukes one of disciples for later using it.
Now I know that there are a handful of verses that could lend support to both sides of the argument (which will probably be quoted back to me). I’m simply arguing that I don’t see this issue as an easy black-and-white answer based off of Jesus’ actions AND teachings. Since I’ve quoted things that I agree with Brian McLaren about, let me add a quote of something that I don’t agree with. He writes about a second coming where God forcefully sifts people and judges them and the seeming contrast from Jesus’ life.
“If we remain charmed by this this kind of eschataology, we will be forced to see the nonviolence of the Jesus of the Gospels as a kind of strategic fake-out, like a feigned retreat in war, to be followed up by a crushing blow of so-called redemptive violence in the end. The gentle Jesus of the first coming becomes a kind of trick Jesus, a fake-me-out Messiah, to be replaced by the true jihadist Jesus of a violent second coming.” – Everything Must Change (144)
I’m still not sure exactly where I land on this issue but I can tell you that I think there is validity in BOTH arguments based off of the Jesus we see in the Gospels.
This is the personal blog of Jeremy Jernigan. Husband, father, teaching pastor, and student of truth.
I don’t think Jesus was a pacifist. But I do believe he taught and modeled non-violence. The account of him in the temple, turning over tables and rebuking the temple dwellers would shatter the idea that Jesus was a live and let live pacifist. But throughout the gospel accounts I think we can see a pretty clear case made for non-violent, or at least non-lethal, resistance. Was Jesus “violent?” Maybe his protest in the temple could be categorized that way, but the account doesn’t say he physically harmed anyone in the process.
So maybe instead of using the term “pacifism” as an umbrella for the spectrum of non-violence, we might be better served in being a bit more specific. Was Jesus a pacifist? Or was he for non-violent protest? Or would it be more accurate to say he advocated non-lethal resistance?
Thanks for the post, Jeremy. Very interesting stuff.
and i also think pulling lines out of parables is a bit shaky here. like you said, there are other verses to support the other side of the argument….and i guess I’d counter your examples with the sermon on the mount.
That’s exactly my point Zach. You could make a case for both. I guess my frustration is from the pacifist side telling everybody that it is the only way to interpret Jesus. I rarely, if ever, hear the non-pacifist (is there a positive word for that?) side telling people that it is the only way to view Jesus.
I guess I would say it depends on what you mean by “both.” Reading the Gospels, it’s very clear that at no time does Jesus instruct anyone around him to commit violence towards another person or group of people. Hey may have included violence in a story or parable he told, but his teachings is very clearly to be peacemakers, to not have hatred in our hearts-even for our enemies, to reject life lived by the sword.
So if by “both” you mean to distinguish pacifism and non-violence then I’m with you entirely. But if by “both” you mean pacifism and violence, even lethal violence, then I couldn’t disagree more.
This debate is rooted not in the violent or non-violent nature of Jesus or God but instead in how we are instructed to treat our fellow human beings. We are taught by Jesus, quite clearly in my view, that at no time should we commit violence against another. Obviously this is a very tough issue. If someone breaks into my home and threatens my wife or children, I’m probably not gonna stop and ponder this too long. I’ll do what I can to protect them and if that means I have to harm the intruder, then I’m willing to live with that and take it up with my maker at a later date. But if it can be at all possible to protect you or your loved ones without the use of lethal force, I think that should be pursued to the fullest extent within reason.
Your last example sums up what I’m trying to say. You’d argue that an accepted stance of violence to address a conflict would be wrong, but, you’d classify violently protecting your family as something that you’d choose to do knowing that you will take it up with your maker at a later date. A pure stance of nonviolence (or pacifism) would tell you to try and talk them out of it but ultimately let them do what they’d do to your family. And yet, you would say it was worth fighting for with the implied understanding that God would probably understand.
What is different from a soldier fighting for his country? Or for that matter, a president sending troops to protect their country (I’m not referring to Iraq here, I’m simply referring to the basic concept).
Also, why do you think Jesus tells his disciples to sell their cloak and buy a sword (Lk.22:36)? I honestly don’t have an answer to that so I’d be curious as to your take on it.
Interesting post and follow up comments.
Pacificism:
1. opposition to war or violence of any kind.
2. refusal to engage in military activity because of one’s principles or beliefs.
3. the principle or policy that all differences among nations should be adjusted without recourse to war.
I want to believe that Jesus was a pacifist in that I believe he would advise against using war to attempt to solve problems and advocated against violence. Yet I see the description of him in Revelation 1 and see something that would seem to be exact opposite of a pacifist. It makes me think of the statement you made Jeremy when you said there needs to be a balance of truth & grace. With Jesus I think there was & is a healthy balance. As for us, I think it has to be the same. I want to believe that we are justified in defending ourselves if the situation ever arose. However, I think that the goal would be to peacefully settle our differences. When all else fails, I have a hard time seeing us be “punished” for taking the route of peace & love. I have a much easier time seeing us be “punished” for taking the path of violence to settle our problems.
I just read a quote from the famous Jack Handey that should add some humor to the discussion.
“I can picture in my mind a world without war, a world without hate. And I can picture us attacking that world, because they’d never expect it.” – Jack Handey, Deep Thoughts
Jeremy, I was not trying to imply that God would probably understand. What I was saying is that in the heat of the moment, my instinct, right or wrong, would be to be an obstacle for any intruder in my home who may be intent on harming me or my family. So in that moment I may be doing the wrong thing but would selfishly proceed in order to protect my family. I also believe that in that moment, if there were a way for me to be a non-lethal obstacle, I should be as vigilant in that as I possibly could with that very commandment from God hanging over my head.
As far as a soldier fighting for his country, I would say that their willingness to sacrifice themselves for others is praise worthy. But I would also say that if they take a life, even of their fiercest enemy, they are ignoring a commandment from God’s law and from Jesus’ teachings. We are called to love our enemies and to not have hatred in our hearts for others. It’s pretty cut and dry and personally, I’m not all that interested in parsing it out in order to justify “justified” murder.
As far as the verse you cite, Jesus was citing a prophesy in Isaiah 53 in verse 37 when he says ““for it is written: ‘he was numbered with the transgressors.’ Some believe that he and his disciples needed the swords to be categorized by the Roman soldiers as “transgressors.” And the fact they only had two swords for 12 men seems to support the idea that the swords weren’t needed for practical purposes but rather as symbols of “transgression.” But this is sort of beside the point because in Matthew, Jesus definitively states to his disciples they they should NOT live by the sword or they will die by it as well, echoing God’s plea to the Israelites in 1 Samuel 8.
My position is that Jesus was not a pacifist but modeled non-violent action. He didn’t just sit back and live and let live. He resisted the religious and civic authorities of his day, but did so non-violently without killing anyone as well as instructing his followers not only to not murder, but to love their enemies.
Thank you Jeremy for sharing this.
I agree that whenever there is a grey area there are always going to be arguments for both sides and even the middle.
I’ll just simply state that I agree that Jesus was not a pacifist.
Ah yes, Jack Handy. I have to say the best Deep Thoughts were from the 90′s.
Jeremy,
This is an interesting subject. I’m always fascinated in the “was Jesus this” and “was Jesus that” arguments. Because Jesus is God, and he is the Creator of everything, and his Word is the Bible, we can find out a lot about Jesus by reading other parts of the Bible, not just the parts that pertain to him living as a human on Earth.
God hates sin. He hates everything about it. The Bible speaks many times about the wrath he will and has poured out on those who sin. Historically one of his primary ways of dealing with sin on Earth, has been with government, and wars and things like that. We also see a lot of natural disasters, particularly in the OT that God is actually using to blot out sin.
Zach – not sure where you are going with the stuff about soldiers. Are you suggesting that a soldier at war is “murdering” enemy soldiers? That’s a pretty risky proposition. In the OT God many times commanded the Isrealites to completely wipe out everyone in a particular town or city. When Christ himself returns, the Bible is clear that he himself will wage war on sinful people. Check out Revelation 19. Pretty graphic stuff. “He will tread the winepress of the fury of the wrath of God the Almighty.”
As to how it pertains to us today, here’s what I see. We are called to love our neighbor as ourself. We are also called to submit to the authorities that God has raised up and put in charge of us. It is one of the government’s roles to protect us, and to punish those that do not follow the rules. There are times when this goes outside of our borders and we are forced to either defend ourselves or to defend defenseless people. The result is war. As I said earlier, historically God has always used different governments to control sin.
So, what is the nature of Christ? The nature of Christ is to love his people, and to hate sin. His purpose in the Gospels was to accomplish the task of paying the price for OUR sin. He purposely became subject to the death that was meant for us. His purpose in His return will be to vanquish sin forever. No, Jesus is not a pacifist. This was no “cosmic fake-out” or whatever that guy said in the book. It’s just that God’s plan has a much bigger picture than the little snapshots we get to see.
What Christ does in Revelation has no bearing on how we’ve been instructed by God both in his Commandments and as well as Jesus’ teachings to live and to treat others. Even if Jesus comes back and slaughters all non-believers as Revelation might indicate, that doesn’t justify us murdering fellow human beings. In the same way, what God had commanded the Israelites to do in the Old Testament in no way negates how Jesus instructs us to live in the Sermon on the Mount. If you want to cite the old testament, that’s fine, but I hope you’re also wearing garments without mixed fibers or actively trying to stone to death any homosexual you can find.
As far as military duty is concerned, I don’t think the Commandment reads, “Thou shall not kill, except when your government asks you to.”
Zach – Not really sure what to say here. Typically when having a discussion about Jesus I would look to the Bible, as the inerrant Word of God, to base my position on. If we’re going to use some other measure to define who Jesus is or what he says, I’m not really interested.
Maybe I didn’t make myself clear. If Jesus returns as you expect he will based on your interpretation of Revelation and kills non-believers, that does not then give us the liberty to kill others. Correct me if I’m wrong, but it seems you’re using your interpretation of Revelation to justify for Jesus followers the use of lethal violence. Let’s assume your interpretation is correct, I would still submit that the foretold actions in Jesus in Revelation do not give his followers license to mimic his sovereignty and assume the authority to take the lives of others.
For example, I’m a father of a seven year old girl. I drive her to school every day. By using your same reasoning or interpretive lens, my daughter would say that if her dad can drive, then she should be free to drive as well. But I would argue to my daughter that she’s in no position to drive and that my instruction to her is that she is not try to drive. There is a difference between what is my authority to drive and my instruction to my daughter.
We are instructed by Jesus to not take the life of another. If he takes a life, it is dangerously presumptuous of us to assume that is our right as well. The same goes for God’s instruction to the Israelites. You and I are not the Israelites. We are followers of Jesus. If there is any confusion, we should simply read his teachings and follow them as closely as possible. Loving your enemy, turning the other cheek and not living “by the sword” seems to be a pretty convincing case for not killing another. If we rationalize the ignoring of these teachings in the name of protecting our physical well-being, then we are sacrificing our the inner convictions that Jesus has laid on our hearts for the protection of our physical and finite bodies. Jesus, John the Baptist, and Paul were all operating out of calling of of the spirit, and not the protection of their physical well-being. Maybe we would do well to follow in their footsteps.
Hmmm . . .this is interesting . . .what’s funny is I’m back and forth regarding the current war. Initially, I hated the fact that we are just fighting for our own ego and self-security, and possibly oil – turns my stomach. However, I feel that God gave me a different perspective several months ago, in that I DO believe that God wants us to stick up for the little guy, when he can’t take care of himself (such as the widow and orphan), and the people in the Middle East have been terrorized to a dibilitating extent! I like the idea that we would go in and stick up for the little guy, the defensless. I know that it’s not that cut and dried – politics NEVER is. (I don’t care WHO you voted for – they are a politician seeking to have power over the most powerful nation in the world – that’s a scary thought!)
As far as the OT references, I don’t believe we can disconnect Jesus from “the God of the OT” – they are one and the same. Period.
Makes me think of the whole abortion vs. death penalty argument. On the one side we have those saying women should have the choice to kill their innocent baby, but by-golly we should save the murderer . . . then we have the flip side – and both sides can’t understand the thinking the other side. HA!! It all just seems so strange to me . . . and there are Christians (Christians who I love and respect) on both sides . . . and I can SEE both sides . . . *sigh*
Here’s my point. We all could argue both sides until we’re all blue in the face. And because most of us have already made up our minds, it would be a mindless “blood-bath” of intelligent communication. My hope is that we don’t just assume God’s reaction in any and all situations – sticking Him in one camp or the other . . . perhaps we should take this as a lesson that we should seek God at all times, in all things, and understand that He has the right to ask us to do whatever pleases Him. Many times He will ask us to stand-down. But there may come a time when He asks us to stand-up and fight, and I hope I’m willing to do whatever He asks, even if it means giving my life.
if the ot and jesus are one in the same, then which commandment to you pick between stoning to death homosexuals as leviticus instructs or “he who is without sin cast the first stone” from the nt gospel?
I believe scripture supports the immutability of both God and the Law. Neither changes, but directive as to how to live our lives has: by faith instead of by works.
All of the requirements of Mosaic Law were fulfilled through the life, death, and resurrection of Christ (Gal 3:13). Because of what he’s done, and as believers, we are “not under law but under grace,” (Rom 6:14).
Makes me feel much better about my tattoos and inability to grow a decent beard, among other things.
Not sure what you mean exactly by the OT and Jesus being one and the same. Are you suggesting that the God of the OT is not the God of the NT?
Not at all. Just wondering which instructions we follow when the instructions are directly opposed to each other. I’m suggesting that maybe as Christians, Jesus instructions to his followers might be more pertinent than God’s instructions to the Israelites in the OT. If you don’t agree, then I hope you have four tassels hanging from your shirt.