Was Jesus really a pacifist?

[theophilus]

Jesus is perceived by many as being a pacifist who never practiced or advocated violence of any kind. He commanded us to turn the other cheek when someone hits us and to love everyone, including our enemies. On the basis of these commands some Christians have concluded that a Christian must never engage in any kind of violence. They believe it is wrong for a Christian to serve in the military, even if his country is at war.

If we consider only these teachings of Jesus this seems to be a logical conclusion. But Jesus also did and said some things that are inconsistent with pacifism.

His reaction when he saw what was going on in the temple wasn’t that of a pacifist.

And Jesus entered the temple and drove out all who sold and bought in the temple, and he overturned the tables of the money-changers and the seats of those who sold pigeons. He said to them, “It is written, ‘My house shall be called a house of prayer,’ but you make it a den of robbers.”
Matthew 21:12-13 ESV

When he was arrested Peter tried to defend him.

Then Simon Peter, having a sword, drew it and struck the high priest’s servant and cut off his right ear. (The servant’s name was Malchus.) So Jesus said to Peter, “Put your sword into its sheath; shall I not drink the cup that the Father has given me?”
John 18:10-11 ESV

At first this seems to confirm the belief that Jesus advocated pacifism. He said that Peter was wrong in attacking. But then Jesus told Peter to put his sword back in its sheath. Wouldn’t a true pacifist have told Peter to throw his sword away because he would never need it again?

Earlier he had given his disciples a command that was even more inconsistent with pacifism.

He said to them, “But now let the one who has a moneybag take it, and likewise a knapsack. And let the one who has no sword sell his cloak and buy one.”
Luke 22:36 ESV

He not only told Peter to keep his sword but he also said the the disciples who didn’t already have swords should buy them. But what is the point of having a sword if you are commanded to respond to an attacker by turning the other cheek? This appears to be a problem because we misunderstand what Jesus meant by the command.

Do not resist the one who is evil. But if anyone slaps you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also.
Matthew 5:39 ESV

Jesus said that if someone slaps us on the right cheek we are to turn the other cheek. Most people are right handed. If you are facing someone and hit him on the right cheek with your right hand you will hit him with the back of your hand. You might cause some pain but you can’t do any real physical harm.

The purpose in striking someone this way is to insult him and express contempt for him. There have been cultures in which this act would be considered a challenge to a duel. Today it is possible that the person being slapped will try to kill the other without bothering with the formalities of a duel. Jesus has forbidden us to respond in this way. This command does not prohibit us from defending ourselves if someone attacks with the intention of hurting or killing us.

Swords can be used for other reasons beside self defense. Jesus said that one of the two great commandments was to love our neighbor as ourselves. If a neighbor is being attacked love demands that we defend him if possible even if it means hurting or killing the attacker. (I have heard objections to this on the grounds that it isn’t showing love for the attacker, but this is a situation that calls for justice as well as love.)

The things Jesus taught while on earth were only the beginning of his teaching. After he was taken up into Heaven he continued to teach and direct his disciples through the Holy Spirit.

But you will receive power when the Holy Spirit has come upon you, and you will be my witnesses in Jerusalem and in all Judea and Samaria, and to the end of the earth.
Acts 1:8 ESV

Acts chapter 10 tells how the Spirit led Peter to preach the gospel to a Gentile named Cornelius.

And while Peter was pondering the vision, the Spirit said to him, “Behold, three men are looking for you. Rise and go down and accompany them without hesitation, for I have sent them.”
Acts 10:19-20 ESV

Peter obeyed and the Holy Spirit came on Cornelius and the people who were with him just at he had come on the Jews earlier.

While Peter was still saying these things, the Holy Spirit fell on all who heard the word. And the believers from among the circumcised who had come with Peter were amazed, because the gift of the Holy Spirit was poured out even on the Gentiles. For they were hearing them speaking in tongues and extolling God.

Then Peter declared, “Can anyone withhold water for baptizing these people, who have received the Holy Spirit just as we have?” And he commanded them to be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ. Then they asked him to remain for some days.
Acts 10:44-48 ESV

Cornelius was not only a Gentile but he was also an officer in the Roman army.

At Caesarea there was a man named Cornelius, a centurion of what was known as the Italian Cohort, a devout man who feared God with all his household, gave alms generously to the people, and prayed continually to God.
Acts 10:1-2 ESV

If Jesus taught pacifism surely Cornelius would have quit his job and found a new occupation when he became a believer but there is no indication that he did anything like this. Chapter 11 of Acts describes the opposition of some believers to the conversion of Cornelius, but their objections were based on the fact that Cornelius was an uncircumcised Gentile, not that he was a Roman soldier.

Jesus acknowledged the authority of human government. When asked whether it was right to pay taxes to Caesar his response was, “Render to Caesar the things that are Caesar’s, and to God the things that are God’s.” We are not only required to pay our taxes, but the choice of Cornelius as the first Gentile convert shows that we may also serve as soldiers in Caesar’s army. Jesus never taught pacifism so there is no reason a person cannot be both a professional soldier and a Christian.

[EssentialSacrifice]

Jesus never taught pacifism

looks like you answered your own question !

[B. W.]

Jesus never taught pacifism

looks like you answered your own question !

I seconded that
-
-
-

[PaulSacramento]

WHat is a pacifist?

pac·i·fist
ˈpasəfəst/
noun
1.
a person who believes that war and violence are unjustifiable.
"she was a committed pacifist all her life"
synonyms: peace-lover, conscientious objector, passive resister, peacemaker, peacemonger, dove
"you know, even pacifists can support their nation's armed forces"
adjective
1.
holding the belief that war and violence are unjustifiable.

Of course that definition has changed over the centuries.

It used to be that a pacifist was a person that believed that peace was preferable to war, that violence was NOT the right method to resolve conflict.
In THAT regard Jesus is a pacifist.

As for the current definition, NO, Jesus would not be a pacifist because there ARE moral and correct reasons to use violence and God has used violence in the past and WILL use in the future.
Why?
Because for some, unfortunately, violence is the ONLY language they understand.

[melanie]

Jesus is perceived by many as being a pacifist who never practiced or advocated violence of any kind. He commanded us to turn the other cheek when someone hits us and to love everyone, including our enemies. On the basis of these commands some Christians have concluded that a Christian must never engage in any kind of violence. They believe it is wrong for a Christian to serve in the military, even if his country is at war.

If we consider only these teachings of Jesus this seems to be a logical conclusion. But Jesus also did and said some things that are inconsistent with pacifism.

His reaction when he saw what was going on in the temple wasn’t that of a pacifist.

And Jesus entered the temple and drove out all who sold and bought in the temple, and he overturned the tables of the money-changers and the seats of those who sold pigeons. He said to them, “It is written, ‘My house shall be called a house of prayer,’ but you make it a den of robbers.”
Matthew 21:12-13 ESV

When he was arrested Peter tried to defend him.

Then Simon Peter, having a sword, drew it and struck the high priest’s servant and cut off his right ear. (The servant’s name was Malchus.) So Jesus said to Peter, “Put your sword into its sheath; shall I not drink the cup that the Father has given me?”
John 18:10-11 ESV

At first this seems to confirm the belief that Jesus advocated pacifism. He said that Peter was wrong in attacking. But then Jesus told Peter to put his sword back in its sheath. Wouldn’t a true pacifist have told Peter to throw his sword away because he would never need it again?

Earlier he had given his disciples a command that was even more inconsistent with pacifism.

He said to them, “But now let the one who has a moneybag take it, and likewise a knapsack. And let the one who has no sword sell his cloak and buy one.”
Luke 22:36 ESV

He not only told Peter to keep his sword but he also said the the disciples who didn’t already have swords should buy them. But what is the point of having a sword if you are commanded to respond to an attacker by turning the other cheek? This appears to be a problem because we misunderstand what Jesus meant by the command.

Do not resist the one who is evil. But if anyone slaps you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also.
Matthew 5:39 ESV

Jesus said that if someone slaps us on the right cheek we are to turn the other cheek. Most people are right handed. If you are facing someone and hit him on the right cheek with your right hand you will hit him with the back of your hand. You might cause some pain but you can’t do any real physical harm.

The purpose in striking someone this way is to insult him and express contempt for him. There have been cultures in which this act would be considered a challenge to a duel. Today it is possible that the person being slapped will try to kill the other without bothering with the formalities of a duel. Jesus has forbidden us to respond in this way. This command does not prohibit us from defending ourselves if someone attacks with the intention of hurting or killing us.

Swords can be used for other reasons beside self defense. Jesus said that one of the two great commandments was to love our neighbor as ourselves. If a neighbor is being attacked love demands that we defend him if possible even if it means hurting or killing the attacker. (I have heard objections to this on the grounds that it isn’t showing love for the attacker, but this is a situation that calls for justice as well as love.)

The things Jesus taught while on earth were only the beginning of his teaching. After he was taken up into Heaven he continued to teach and direct his disciples through the Holy Spirit.

But you will receive power when the Holy Spirit has come upon you, and you will be my witnesses in Jerusalem and in all Judea and Samaria, and to the end of the earth.
Acts 1:8 ESV

Acts chapter 10 tells how the Spirit led Peter to preach the gospel to a Gentile named Cornelius.

And while Peter was pondering the vision, the Spirit said to him, “Behold, three men are looking for you. Rise and go down and accompany them without hesitation, for I have sent them.”
Acts 10:19-20 ESV

Peter obeyed and the Holy Spirit came on Cornelius and the people who were with him just at he had come on the Jews earlier.

While Peter was still saying these things, the Holy Spirit fell on all who heard the word. And the believers from among the circumcised who had come with Peter were amazed, because the gift of the Holy Spirit was poured out even on the Gentiles. For they were hearing them speaking in tongues and extolling God.

Then Peter declared, “Can anyone withhold water for baptizing these people, who have received the Holy Spirit just as we have?” And he commanded them to be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ. Then they asked him to remain for some days.
Acts 10:44-48 ESV

Cornelius was not only a Gentile but he was also an officer in the Roman army.

At Caesarea there was a man named Cornelius, a centurion of what was known as the Italian Cohort, a devout man who feared God with all his household, gave alms generously to the people, and prayed continually to God.
Acts 10:1-2 ESV

If Jesus taught pacifism surely Cornelius would have quit his job and found a new occupation when he became a believer but there is no indication that he did anything like this. Chapter 11 of Acts describes the opposition of some believers to the conversion of Cornelius, but their objections were based on the fact that Cornelius was an uncircumcised Gentile, not that he was a Roman soldier.

Jesus acknowledged the authority of human government. When asked whether it was right to pay taxes to Caesar his response was, “Render to Caesar the things that are Caesar’s, and to God the things that are God’s.” We are not only required to pay our taxes, but the choice of Cornelius as the first Gentile convert shows that we may also serve as soldiers in Caesar’s army. Jesus never taught pacifism so there is no reason a person cannot be both a professional soldier and a Christian.

I have read this before......
More than once, it has made its rounds on the Internet.

Whilst there are things which are certainly true, a soldier can be a Christian. It's just the same rambles of man trying to justify their social, political agendas using Jesus as their 'poster boy'.

Well he's not.

I see it all the time.
Liberals, conservatives, environmentalists, homophobes, pacifists, gun advocates, anti-gun advocates, and the list goes on and on....

We attach Jesus to our little worldly kingdoms of what we perceive as right. Using scripture to back it up and Our Saviour as the poster boy.
Jesus did not teach the lessons concerning God's Kingdom as justification for any earthly Kingdom.
His lessons were about looking beyond what man creates, looking beyond earthly dominion and setting our eyes and hearts to the future Kingdom.
Not to use whatever 'ism' floats our boat, attach His name to it, and claim it as Christian.

Jesus turned the tables over in the temple because they were using what was Holy for earthly desires. I don't think there is a church around today that Jesus would not do the exact same thing too. There are pastors and preachers standing on their pulpits endorsing political figures, personal social agendas, running their churches as businesses.
Don't get me wrong everyone has personal, political, and social agendas.
But they are rooted in the world, and they belong to our own little kingdoms.
Jesus does not endorse or support yours, mine and any of our earthly isms.
They do not save, they do not glorify, they are not turning hearts to God but used as a tool of justification.
Jesus is a poster boy, for one thing only.
The heavenly Kingdom.

[Storyteller]

Mel...

Brilliant post.

[Philip]

Mel...

Brilliant post.

NONE of which, however, refutes the reality that Jesus/God is NOT a pacifist when it comes to evil or in protecting His own, or punishing those who reject Him. So many have this view of a mild-mannered, namby-pamby, milk-toast Jesus. Remember that God of the Old Testament, that God/Jesus Who will wreak devastation into the forces of the armies of Armageddon, that Jesus Who warned of the great destruction He will bring to those whom fight against Him or do not love Him? Yeah, THAT Jesus - He's no pacifist, as so defined by men. But He DOES value peace and harmony - which often requires righteous violence to enforce. Pacifism is a view of peace at ALL costs.

[Storyteller]

I`m not saying violence is always wrong.

It`s a tough subject to address, how do you define righteous violence? Who defines it?

David Cameron, for example, has just sent UK forces to bomb Syria. Righteous? What about the innocents? Does the loss of civillian life not matter as long as ISIS is defeated? Who makes that choice?

I swing from thinking we should all unite against this type of threat but it`s so hard to accept that there will be innocent blood shed. I know it can be argued that innocent lives are being lost already and I don`t know what the answer is, it just breaks my heart. This is why I don`t watch the news, it breaks my heart, it makes me cry. It`s a physical feeling.

It just makes me want out of this hell.

[PaulSacramento]

Revelation gives us a view of Jesus as something quite opposite of a pacifist as the term is commonly used today.

Righteous and just war is ONLY that when commanded by GOD ( Theocratic war) OR in the defense and protection of those that can NOT defend and protect themselves.

[Philip]

Story: It`s a tough subject to address, how do you define righteous violence? Who defines it?

God/Jesus/Scripture

Story: David Cameron, for example, has just sent UK forces to bomb Syria.

Syria is a complex mess! There are no good guys there - or at least that is frequently an unclear thing to discern. Bombing groups like ISIS or other organized terrorists, etc., these are necessary, unfortunately. With such people, there is no reason, rhyme or civilized understandings - only, murder, mayhem, inc. What SHOULD be done isn't always clear. There will always be risks associated with trying to achieve a positive outcome/results. But, often, to do NOTHING only lets evil people and organizations proliferate, helps them achieve their objectives.

Story: Righteous? What about the innocents? Does the loss of civilian life not matter as long as ISIS is defeated? Who makes that choice?

Of COURSE, civilians matter. But whenever an enemy with the capability and proven history of exponentially exporting and furthering their evil upon humanity hides or immerses itself amidst a civilian population, if they cannot be contained from further and exponentially increasing death and mayhem, then they must be engaged precisely wherever they are. That is unavoidable. Because the other choice is to let them use the surrounding hostages as shields to eventually kill more and more people. Look at WWII-era Japan and Germany - both relatively small countries, yet with evil, determined, fanatical goals and leadership, they brought hell across the world. Engaging them wherever they were was imperative, if undesirable. The Islamists are no exception to this terrible reality.

Story: I swing from thinking we should all unite against this type of threat but it`s so hard to accept that there will be innocent blood shed.

Is not the direct thrust of such groups, like ISIS, not to shed as much "innocent" blood as it takes to accomplish their objectives? So, it's a question of WHICH innocent blood is shed. And is it going to be shed purposely with malice and glee, so as to further do so (like ISIS, etc.), or is it violence calculated to bring and end to the shedding of innocent blood and those who would pursue such evil? THAT is our choice. Do nothing now, then inevitably more and MORE innocent and civilian blood will be shed. But by TRYING to do what we can means mistakes and horrors are inevitable/unavoidable. But what is the other option - what does NOT engaging the enemy produce - less or MORE violence, evil and death?

[Storyteller]

I know what youre saying makes sense Philip but I dunno, its just so hard. I know civilians will suffer, are suffering, it all just seems such a waste, so senseless. It pains me. I feel so powerless, so angry at the injustice of it all. It makes me weep for humanity.
I cling to my faith, my trust in God. I pray. Cling on to the fact that one day all will be well, just not in this lifetime.