Jesus the pacifist?

[McCulloch]

Try to debunk it and see where you land. As for physical violence I haven't been attacked by a christian in years. Additionally if a christian attacks you he isn't a christian by definition. Scripture tells us to defend God at every turn but to do it with reverence and respect.

And He said to them, "But now, whoever has a money belt is to take it along, likewise also a bag, and whoever has no sword is to sell his coat and buy one. For I tell you that this which is written must be fulfilled in Me, 'AND HE WAS NUMBERED WITH TRANSGRESSORS'; for that which refers to Me has its fulfillment."
They said, "Lord, look, here are two swords." And He said to them, "It is enough."
[...]
While He was still speaking, behold, a crowd came, and the one called Judas, one of the twelve, was preceding them; and he approached Jesus to kiss Him.
But Jesus said to him, "Judas, are you betraying the Son of Man with a kiss?"
When those who were around Him saw what was going to happen, they said, "Lord, shall we strike with the sword?"
And one of them struck the slave of the high priest and cut off his right ear.
But Jesus answered and said, "Stop! No more of this." And He touched his ear and healed him.

Matthew inserts

Then Jesus said to him, "Put your sword back into its place; for all those who take up the sword shall perish by the sword.

If Jesus taught pacifism, why would he insist that there be a sword?

And when Jesus entered Capernaum, a centurion came to Him, imploring Him, and saying, "Lord, my servant is lying paralyzed at home, fearfully tormented."
Jesus said to him, "I will come and heal him."
But the centurion said, "Lord, I am not worthy for You to come under my roof, but just say the word, and my servant will be healed. For I also am a man under authority, with soldiers under me; and I say to this one, 'Go!' and he goes, and to another, 'Come!' and he comes, and to my slave, 'Do this!' and he does it."
Now when Jesus heard this, He marveled and said to those who were following, "Truly I say to you, I have not found such great faith with anyone in Israel. I say to you that many will come from east and west, and [a]recline at the table with Abraham, Isaac and Jacob in the kingdom of heaven; but the sons of the kingdom will be cast out into the outer darkness; in that place there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth."
And Jesus said to the centurion, "Go; it shall be done for you as you have believed." And the servant was healed that very moment.

If Jesus was a pacifist, why would he not have taken this opportunity to tell this professional soldier to lay up his weapons?

And He found in the temple those who were selling oxen and sheep and doves, and the money changers seated at their tables.
And He made a scourge of cords, and drove them all out of the temple, with the sheep and the oxen; and He poured out the coins of the money changers and overturned their tables; and to those who were selling the doves He said, "Take these things away; stop making My Father's house a place of business."

If Jesus taught pacifism, why would he make a scourge of ropes and drive the money changers out with violence or the threat of violence?

[Miles]

Just another example of the extensive number of passages in the Bible that Christians have chosen (been compelled) to disregard in their portrayal of their kind, gentle, loving, forgiving, etc. etc. god. (Jesus being god). It would be amusing if it wasn't such a widespread, duplicitous practice. Not that they haven't contrived various explanations for them, but they're hardly the kinds of defenses they can be proud of. Often they are sooo tortured as be ridiculous, yet there they are, presented with a straight face no less.

[VermilionUK]

Just a thought on Gentle-Jesus:

And they come to Jerusalem: and Jesus went into the temple, and began to cast out them that sold and bought in the temple, and overthrew the tables of the moneychangers, and the seats of them that sold doves; And would not suffer that any man should carry any vessel through the temple. And he taught, saying unto them, Is it not written, My house shall be called of all nations the house of prayer? but ye have made it a den of thieves. And the scribes and chief priests heard it, and sought how they might destroy him: for they feared him, because all the people was astonished at his doctrine.

Doesn't sound so passive to me...he seems a tad narked off in that one.


You see the last part:

And the scribes and chief priests heard it, and sought how they might destroy him: for they feared him, because all the people was astonished at his doctrine

Fear of Jesus?

[Heterodoxus]

And He said to them, "But now, whoever has a money belt is to take it along, likewise also a bag, and whoever has no sword [μαχαι�αν: dirk, large knife (like a Bowie knife) or dagger ideal for close-in, hand-to-hand defense] is to sell his coat and buy one. For I tell you that this which is written must be fulfilled in Me, 'AND HE WAS NUMBERED WITH TRANSGRESSORS'; for that which refers to Me has its fulfillment."
They said, "Lord, look, here are two swords [μαχαι�αι: dirks, large knives or daggers]." And He said to them, "It is enough."
[...]
While He was still speaking, behold, a crowd came, and the one called Judas, one of the twelve, was preceding them; and he approached Jesus to kiss Him.
But Jesus said to him, "Judas, are you betraying the Son of Man with a kiss?"
When those who were around Him saw what was going to happen, they said, "Lord, shall we strike with the sword [μαχαι�α: see above]?"
And one of them struck the slave of the high priest and cut off his right ear.
But Jesus answered and said, "Stop! No more of this." And He touched his ear and healed him.

Matthew inserts

Then Jesus said to him, "Put your sword [ditto] back into its place; for all those who take up the sword [ditto] shall perish by the sword [ditto, and is this verse not a warning that those who use violence might die by violence?].

If Jesus taught pacifism, why would he insist that there be a sword?

He might have demonstrated non-violence, but don't you think Jesus understood the need for people to be able to defend themselves from violent attack both then and now?

And when Jesus entered Capernaum, a centurion came to Him, imploring Him, and saying, "Lord, my servant is lying paralyzed at home, fearfully tormented."
Jesus said to him, "I will come and heal him."
But the centurion said, "Lord, I am not worthy for You to come under my roof, but just say the word, and my servant will be healed. For I also am a man under authority, with soldiers under me; and I say to this one, 'Go!' and he goes, and to another, 'Come!' and he comes, and to my slave, 'Do this!' and he does it."
Now when Jesus heard this, He marveled and said to those who were following, "Truly I say to you, I have not found such great faith with anyone in Israel. I say to you that many will come from east and west, and [a]recline at the table with Abraham, Isaac and Jacob in the kingdom of heaven; but the sons of the kingdom will be cast out into the outer darkness; in that place there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth."
And Jesus said to the centurion, "Go; it shall be done for you as you have believed." And the servant was healed that very moment.

If Jesus was a pacifist, why would he not have taken this opportunity to tell this professional soldier to lay up his weapons?

And leave him possibly unarmed, defenseless, and unable to protect either himself or a fellow soldier on a battle field?

And He found in the temple those who were selling oxen and sheep and doves, and the money changers seated at their tables.
And He made a scourge of cords[φ�αγελλιον: whip with cords or either ropes, leather, or long strands of a woven grassy material] , and drove them all out of the temple, with the sheep and the oxen; and He poured out the coins of the money changers and overturned their tables; and to those who were selling the doves He said, "Take these things away; stop making My Father's house a place of business."

If Jesus taught pacifism, why would he make a scourge of ropes and drive the money changers out with violence or the threat of violence?

Did he? Was he angry, having a temper tantrum, and threatening people? Or, did he go about it in a calm and collected manner like flicking fleas off his feet? He arrived at the Temple sometime after attending a wedding celebration, so what do you think his frame of mind might have been? John 2:12-22 provide no clue; ergo, presuming Jesus was angry and violent seems to be subjective reading/thinking.

[JBlack]

...don't you think Jesus understood the need for people to be able to defend themselves from violent attack both then and now?

I don't think he did.

But I say unto you, That ye resist not evil: but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also.

[Heterodoxus]

...don't you think Jesus understood the need for people to be able to defend themselves from violent attack both then and now?

I don't think he did.

But I say unto you, That ye resist not evil: but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also.

Yes, turn the other cheek--once--unless somebody's coming at you with a weapon intent on doing you bodily or fatal harm.

If one prefers flight to fight, how far will s/he need to run if the belligerent tries to run them down? For the rest of their life? So, okay, turn that other cheek, or run away, but be prepared to defend yourself from persistent physical attack.

Do you not see that Jesus would likely encourage his followers, for their own protection from armed robbers, to carry a dirk/dagger--a custom in that time and place?

[McCulloch]

He might have demonstrated non-violence, but don't you think Jesus understood the need for people to be able to defend themselves from violent attack both then and now?

I try not to speculate. What did Jesus actually say about the appropriate reaction to violent attack? What was Jesus' actual reaction to violent attack?

If Jesus was a pacifist, why would he not have taken this opportunity to tell this professional soldier to lay up his weapons?

And leave him possibly unarmed, defenseless, and unable to protect either himself or a fellow soldier on a battle field?

That is the interpretation of many of his followers, yes.

If Jesus taught pacifism, why would he make a scourge of ropes and drive the money changers out with violence or the threat of violence?

Did he? Was he angry, having a temper tantrum, and threatening people? Or, did he go about it in a calm and collected manner like flicking fleas off his feet? He arrived at the Temple sometime after attending a wedding celebration, so what do you think his frame of mind might have been? John 2:12-22 provide no clue; ergo, presuming Jesus was angry and violent seems to be subjective reading/thinking.

I made no assertions about whether he was angry or not. However, whether he was in a rage or calm and calculating, the text depicts him using violence or the threat of violence, in the form of a whip, to drive the money changers out.

But I say unto you, That ye resist not evil: but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also.

Yes, turn the other cheek--once--unless somebody's coming at you with a weapon intent on doing you bodily or fatal harm.

I don't see where your added qualifier, your exception to Jesus' teaching, is either explicit or implied in the New Testament.

If one prefers flight to fight, how far will s/he need to run if the belligerent tries to run them down?

I don't see where Jesus teaches flight or fight, do you? Turn to him the other cheek is neither.

For the rest of their life? So, okay, turn that other cheek, or run away, but be prepared to defend yourself from persistent physical attack.

Isn't that how the early Christian martyrs interpreted it? Not defending themselves against persistent physical attack but submitting themselves to it.

Do you not see that Jesus would likely encourage his followers, for their own protection from armed robbers, to carry a dirk/dagger--a custom in that time and place?

Why would the guy who told his followers to go the second mile, to give him the cloak also, need to encourage them to have protection against robbers at all?

[Heterodoxus]

OK, let's see what some commentary tells us:

Luke 22:36

They must now expect that their enemies would be more fierce than they had been, and they would need weapons. (Matthew Henry)

Luke 22:38

"Here are two swords." How they come to be in their possession is not told. (People's New Testament)

Many [in] Galilee carried them [daggers/knives] when they travelled, to defend themselves against robbers and assassins, who much infested their road. (Wesley's Notes)

Luke 22:47-51

The disciples’ effort to defend Jesus recalls Luke 22:35-38. One individual did not wait for the answer. (NET Bible)

Matt. 8:5-13

We learn from Lu 7:3, he came to Jesus, not in person, but by Jewish elders, whom he supposed would have more influence with the Lord. These elders interceded more readily because he had built them a synagogue (Lu 7:5), either to secure favor, or because he was, like Cornelius, a devout man.... The centurion answered. Through friends whom he had sent for this purpose (Lu 7:6). (People's New Testament, showing that Jesus didn't talk to the centurion personally, so when would he have had an opportunity to tell him to give up his sword?)

The centurion answered - By his second messengers.... As it is not unusual in all languages, so in the Hebrew it is peculiarly frequent, to ascribe to a person himself the thing which is done, and the words which are spoken by his order. And accordingly St. Matthew relates as said by the centurion himself, what others said by order from him. (Wesley's Notes)

Luke’s account (7:1-10) mentions that the centurion sent some Jewish elders as emissaries on his behalf. (NET Bible)

John 2:15

Made a scourge of small cords. Rather as a symbol than for use.... The traffickers fled before his glance. (People's New Testament)

Though it does not appear that he struck even them; and much less, any of the men. (Wesley's Notes)

"Not by this slender whip ... was the ejection accomplished, the whip being but a sign of the scourge of divine anger". (Grotius, quoted in Jamieson-Fausset-Brown Commentary)

Instead of making a whip of cords, Jesus made "[something] like a whip of cords."... And what would Jesus’ words (and actions) in cleansing the temple have suggested [rightly or wrongly] to the observers? That Jesus was fulfilling messianic expectations [anticipated from their "Messiah the Prince" in Dan. 9:25; Isa. 9:6-7]�. (NET Bible)

See? I was echoing some of these commentators. And please don't go getting defensive on me. My reference to presumption was not directed at you personally, but intended generically. By now, you should be able to put a bit more trust into what I say.

[McCulloch]

OK, let's see what some commentary tells us:

they would need weapons.

to defend themselves against robbers and assassins,

See? I was echoing some of these commentators. And please don't go getting defensive on me. My reference to presumption was not directed at you personally, but intended generically. By now, you should be able to put a bit more trust into what I say.

Do the commentaries make sense? Why would the disciples who were told to give to all who ask, to walk the second mile, to turn the other cheek to one who would strike it, need to defend themselves from robbers?

[Jonah]

The problem here is that Jesus had a biography. The lives of all people are not monochromatic. Every life has evolution, even in instants.

Jesus was part of the swirl of anti-Roman revolution in Galilee and the Jordan valley. Southern Galilee was ground zero for this stuff. Jesus wasn't born in Bethlehem of Judea, but in Bethlehem of Galilee where the remains of a fortified Jewish revolutionary community from that era have been found. There are no archaeological traces of a Jewish community in Bethlehem of Judea in that period.

Clearly Jesus had Zealot and Essene associations. But his home ground also had a Suffering Servant messianic tradition (Messiah son of Joseph in contrast to the Judean militaristic Messiah son of David). In the Galilean tradition the Josephite messiah was to suffer and die and prepare the way for the Davidic messiah. So, the enterprise was not pacifist in its long range goals.

Jesus and his men went to the Temple armed when they had the Temple Cleansing. You don't go to the Super Bowl and just walk in and throw the hot dog and program sellers out without a fight. There had to have been one heck of a fight. Probably innocents got hurt or killed.

This is what the agony in the Garden of Gethsemane is all about. Fight or Die? Jesus, after the Temple Cleansing, sweated out the math. In the end, Jesus chose the way of peace, and to truly be the suffering servant. Jesus put down the sword and went to the cross.

Both Jews and Christians today call themselves the Sons of David. May they collectively choose to be the Davidic messiah which triumphs over the oppressor not by using the oppressor's means, but the opposite.