Was Jesus a pacifist or a pragmatist?

[Dawnofhope]

Neither.
He came as the Son of God, to show people what manner of living was acceptable
to God and to offer Himself as the "Lamb slain from the foundation of the world."
Having said that Jesus was really no different to what we read of God in the Old
Testament. Jesus spoke of Jerusalem being surrounded and even her children
destroyed because the Jews did not know the time of their visitation. And of course,
there are the parables where Jesus enemies are taken out and burnt or cast into
"outer darkness."

As with several who have contributed to this thread you are considering more of a theological narrative rather than historic. My question adresses who He was in regards the historic circumstances. The Jews were expecting a Messiah like King David who would free them from the oppression of the Romans. Jesus had no inclination to wage war against the Romans and would discourage such an approach. Instead He predicted the destruction of Jerusalem and the Jewish people which of course happened in 70 AD after the first Jewish revolt. So in regards theology, what God/Jesus considered the wise course of action was very different from the perceived wisdom of the Jews and Romans.

1 Corinthians 1:18-23

 

[Dawnofhope]

t
So you believe G-John hook line and sinker?
G-Matk reports it as a 11-12 month campaign at most. Oh welll......... on...... >>>>


He didn't have that many close supporters, but he did demonstrate very aggressively in the Temple, and picketed the Temple Courts on two days in a row.


Why would he?
The Temple corruption and the Priesthood were his enemies. I think that Pilate quite liked Jesus.
Where did you get this stuff from?


His enemy was a totally corrupted, greedy and hypocritical Priesthood.

Your thread title makes it look as if a pacifist cannot also be pragmatic. As it happened I don't think that Jesus was pacifist, just morally balanced.


He was prepared to bring back the all the laws of Moses, and by the sword if necessary, and he needed his group to have some weapons before going to Jerusalem.

Matthew: {10:34} Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword.

Luke: {22:36} Then said he unto them, But now, he that
hath a purse, let him take [it,] and likewise [his] scrip: and
he that hath no sword, let him sell his garment, and buy one.


That's a very strange question. Some pacifists are pragmatic. Some pragmatists are pacifists. Very strange options.....

As you appreciate, when it comes to the Life and Teachings of Christ, other than the books that made it into the New Testament, we don't have too much information, let alone first hand accounts. So my narrative is based largely on the New Testament as a whole. I consider the gospel accounts and letters of the apostles authentic though would interpret with caution and avoid literalism. If we remove certain books and focus on selected passages, then a very different portait of who Jesus was emerges.

 

[Thief]

and the Carpenter said....
I have not come with peace.....but a sword

and His disciples heard it

so when the high sabbath of Passover was on the table....
they laid two swords upon it....asking...
Are these enough?

yeah ...they expected Him to multiply the swords as he did the fish and bread
of a previous occasion

He replied.....It is enough
He then got up and walked out to the garden


obviously
His own disciples did not understand Him

 

[Aupmanyav]

To understand Jesus the man , we need to look beyond one recorded event in His life.

You are forgetting the swine which Jesus sent off the cliff; and a class-mate whom he killed just by staring at him. Of course, the unrepentant cities of Chorazin, Bethsaida and Capernaum, suffered greatly because of his curse.

 

[sealchan]

Jesus appears somewhat different from the founders of other Abrahamic Faiths such as Moses or Muhammad. During His brief 3 1/2 year ministry, Jesus was never engaged in armed conflict unlike Muhammad who defended His people against the assault of the Quraysh tribe. Unlike Moses who killed a man, He never physically harmed anybody.

Jesus never advocated initiating armed conflict against the Romans. This could be due to Him being a pragmatist, in that He recognised it was unwise for the Jewish people to be provoking an enemy who would most likely defeat His people. Alternatively, He may not have believed in armed conflict under any circumstances and so was a pacifist. There may of course be other narratives.

So was Jesus a pacifist or pragmatist? How come?

I suspect that the Jews of his time knew violence through a history of revolts against the Roman empire. The story of Jesus was crafted to deftly avoid that unsuccessful pathway to freedom.

But I think that to varying degrees, the gospel authors knew that to transcend your enemy you had to pick a different fight than the one they would force upon you. That is a heroically pragmatic approach and also can be a psychologically powerful one if it is based on good human psychology.

 

[BilliardsBall]

Jesus appears somewhat different from the founders of other Abrahamic Faiths such as Moses or Muhammad. During His brief 3 1/2 year ministry, Jesus was never engaged in armed conflict unlike Muhammad who defended His people against the assault of the Quraysh tribe. Unlike Moses who killed a man, He never physically harmed anybody.

Jesus never advocated initiating armed conflict against the Romans. This could be due to Him being a pragmatist, in that He recognised it was unwise for the Jewish people to be provoking an enemy who would most likely defeat His people. Alternatively, He may not have believed in armed conflict under any circumstances and so was a pacifist. There may of course be other narratives.

So was Jesus a pacifist or pragmatist? How come?

Jesus was neither--He tolerated self-defense while advocating for peace.

 

[ajay0]

Jesus appears somewhat different from the founders of other Abrahamic Faiths such as Moses or Muhammad. During His brief 3 1/2 year ministry, Jesus was never engaged in armed conflict unlike Muhammad who defended His people against the assault of the Quraysh tribe. Unlike Moses who killed a man, He never physically harmed anybody.

Jesus never advocated initiating armed conflict against the Romans. This could be due to Him being a pragmatist, in that He recognised it was unwise for the Jewish people to be provoking an enemy who would most likely defeat His people. Alternatively, He may not have believed in armed conflict under any circumstances and so was a pacifist. There may of course be other narratives.

So was Jesus a pacifist or pragmatist? How come?

Jesus seemed to be a sage more like Ramana Maharshi, Mahavira and Buddha than Krishna or Muhammad or Guru Gobind Singh noted for their warrior careers.

Imho, he was, like Martin Luther King, interested in the spiritual, moral and cultural progress of the Jewish people, rather than their political progress. He may have given teachings on political emancipation of the Jewish people, though such teachings may have been edited out by the romans when they established the Nicene creed in 325 A.D, and later on , the Niceno-Constantinopolitan Creed in 381 A.D.

 

[Samantha Rinne]

Dunno.

Would point out that He DID arm Himself with a whip and did a number on those money changers in the Temple, and He DID tell His disciples to go buy swords.

I would not, given that He is God, say that the first thing (with the whip) was advocating a lack of pacifism on the part of the rest of humanity. After all, the whole idea behind letting God do the punishing and allowing Him to get justice is that God is able to do that.

However, the bit about telling His deciples to go buy swords?

That's a whole 'nuther level of...something. It's not telling them to go out and attack, mind you, but it IS telling them that it is permissible to defend themselves.

This.

Also, people confuse pacifism for submissiveness.

If someone comes in you room, and starts wrecking it, and you punch them and throw them out of your room this doesn't make you a "violent person." It makes them thugs that wrecked your room.

Pacifism is the absence of violence (as in murder and bloodshed), not necessarily the absence of all force.

Jesus saw people effectively wrecking his father's house, and true to honoring his father and mother, he decided to do something about it, while still managing not to be violent. He was pretty rough though.

 

[Vee]

Jesus appears somewhat different from the founders of other Abrahamic Faiths such as Moses or Muhammad. During His brief 3 1/2 year ministry, Jesus was never engaged in armed conflict unlike Muhammad who defended His people against the assault of the Quraysh tribe. Unlike Moses who killed a man, He never physically harmed anybody.

Jesus never advocated initiating armed conflict against the Romans. This could be due to Him being a pragmatist, in that He recognised it was unwise for the Jewish people to be provoking an enemy who would most likely defeat His people. Alternatively, He may not have believed in armed conflict under any circumstances and so was a pacifist. There may of course be other narratives.

So was Jesus a pacifist or pragmatist? How come?

Jesus was a teacher. His mission was to tell people about the good news of the kingdom that would come in the future. He never got involved in world politics, never took sides and never used violence.
He accomplished his goal very successfully and gave an example like no other without ever hurting anyone.

 

[metis]

I doubt very much that Jesus was an out-and-out pacifist because that would be clearly counter to what is taught in Torah. However, I do believe he pushed the Church much more in the direction of trying to avoid war as much as possible. What became called the "Just-War Theory" eventually reflected that position: Just war theory - Wikipedia

 

[Road Warrior]

...Jesus saw people effectively wrecking his father's house, and true to honoring his father and mother, he decided to do something about it, while still managing not to be violent. He was pretty rough though.

While I agree, let's not forget that, according to the Bible, Jesus was on a mission from God and that mission was intended to culminate being nailed to a cross. Tearing up the tables was one means to get the attention of authorities.

 

[metis]

Tearing up the tables was one means to get the attention of authorities.

And he did, which is likely why the Romans crucified him. Plus talking about the "Kingdom of God" probably didn't go over too well either, because for some reason monarchs don't like competition.

 

[Baroodi]

(If Allah is not repelling some set of people by other set of people, the earth would indeed be full of mischief but Allah has his grace for the worlds). Quran 1:251 in the context of David story and when he managed to kill gigantic Goliath.

Muhammed followers were countable initially for years by hand fingers. When he was in power, he was not on the run any more.

 

[PruePhillip]

Jesus seemed to be a sage more like Ramana Maharshi, Mahavira and Buddha than Krishna or Muhammad or Guru Gobind Singh noted for their warrior careers.

Imho, he was, like Martin Luther King, interested in the spiritual, moral and cultural progress of the Jewish people, rather than their political progress. He may have given teachings on political emancipation of the Jewish people, though such teachings may have been edited out by the romans when they established the Nicene creed in 325 A.D, and later on , the Niceno-Constantinopolitan Creed in 381 A.D.

No. There was no "editing" of the Gospels to remove political messages.
Firstly, no evidence.
Secondly, Jesus was not a political person - His message was above politics.
And this was respected by the Herodians, Herod and the Romans. Try as they
might, the Jews could not accuse Jesus of any political stance - they had to
remove Him for what they truly hated - his religious message.

 

[PruePhillip]

While I agree, let's not forget that, according to the Bible, Jesus was on a mission from God and that mission was intended to culminate being nailed to a cross. Tearing up the tables was one means to get the attention of authorities.

No, he was not "getting the attention of authorities"
He already had that - whether he wanted it or not.
Overturning the tables was, as he himself put it, an act out of deep offense at
what the Jews had done to their temple, their religion, and by extension, to
themselves.

 

[Dawnofhope]

Jesus was neither--He tolerated self-defense while advocating for peace.

In that case, perhaps he had elements of both.

 

[Road Warrior]

No, he was not "getting the attention of authorities"
He already had that - whether he wanted it or not.
Overturning the tables was, as he himself put it, an act out of deep offense at
what the Jews had done to their temple, their religion, and by extension, to
themselves.

Thanks for you point of view. Proving yours over mine is impossible so let's leave it at that.

 

[PruePhillip]

Thanks for you point of view. Proving yours over mine is impossible so let's leave it at that.

For the record, Jesus essentially ignored the "authorities." When he DID speak of them
he spoke in generalities and only to warn the common folk of their behavior. Jesus did
not engage in political issues, nor encouraged others to do so either. His message was
The Kingdom of God, not the kingdom of men.

 

[Road Warrior]

For the record, Jesus essentially ignored the "authorities." When he DID speak of them
he spoke in generalities and only to warn the common folk of their behavior. Jesus did
not engage in political issues, nor encouraged others to do so either. His message was
The Kingdom of God, not the kingdom of men.

According to the books written decades after his death.

 

[PruePhillip]

According to the books written decades after his death.

We have no real idea of when the Gospels were written. It's clear these writers wrote before the fall of
Jerusalem. No matter - the message wouldn't have changed. Jesus had no interest in Jewish or Roman
politics - even his enemies conceded that.