Was Jesus a pacifist?

What did Jesus say about pacifism and violence? What are the implications of his teachings?

Jesus' teaching was based around the fact that he was completely against violence. He taught that everybody should live with love in their hearts for their brothers and sisters.

I'd like to think he was. I can't reconcile "if a man takes your coat, offer him your shirt" and "I come not to bring peace, but a sword", though.

I can't reconcile "if a man takes your coat, offer him your shirt" and "I come not to bring peace, but a sword", though.

Click to expand...

All Jesus was saying when He said, "I come not to bring peace, but a sword" was that he was predicting that there would be upheaval in the Jewish community because of his teachings and his actions. And indeed there was that upheaval.

"I come not to bring peace, but a sword"

Click to expand...

That's verse is often mis-used and mis-represented. It can be interpreted in many different way.

The way I see it, which is my interpretation, is that his teachings would bring divisions in an already divided world, between those who follow him and those who don't, and even those who follow him would be divided. To put it in the simplest term, each person would have different interpretation to his words, which would result in divisions, and therefore infightings among the believers.

If you looked at the history of Christianity, his teachings did bring divisions, misunderstanding and often violent conflicts (eg Catholics against other Christians), so what he said is like a prophecy. He wasn't actually bringing the sword or war, but his symbolic sword did cut and divide those who would follow him. There is a long history of people using his name to justify killings, executions or wars.

This particular line doesn't mean he was physically going to attack someone, nor does this line ask his closest followers to attack non-believers.

You have to remember his teaching is often symbolics and metaphors; he spoke often, using parables.

Of course, there are those, who would take this as literal, and it is these idiots who tried to justify their violence in Jesus' name, are really no better than the Islamic terrorists we see today.

gnostic said:

Of course, there are those, who would take this as literal, and it is these idiots who tried to justify their violence in Jesus' name, are really no better than the Islamic terrorists we see today.

Click to expand...

Matthew 10.34-39:




Luke 12.49:

I think Yeshua's teachings are "no harm to anyone or anything else, no matter what" To me this includes self defence. Did yeshua try to seek revenge on the people who killed him or his followers? No.

anastasios said:

I have never known a muslim who used those verses against Jesus or Christianity.

Click to expand...

I have...at the islam.com forums. There are Muslims there who keep throwing this this particular verse at Christian's face, without taking the time to understand it.

So you are the first Muslim I have come across, who understand it wasn't meant literally that "Jesus" himself would do all of those things.

The thing is that no where in the gospels did Jesus or any of his closest disciples (ie apostles) had ever possess or wield swords. They were not soldiers. They were mostly former fishermen, taxman, etc.

In Matthews, Mark and Luke, it only mentioned that Jesus overturned some tables and drove out the merchants, but not how; there was no mention of whip.

John did mention whip, but only in reference to driving out the "sheep and cattle" (2:15); John's gospel was the only one to mention the whip. It doesn't say anywhere that he used the whip on the moneychangers; only that he overturn their tables (2:15). Had the whip injured anyone, at least one gospel would have mentioned it. He did ordered the merchants selling pigeons to take their birds and leave the temple (2:16), but again, no whip was applied to anyone, except upon the sheep and cattle.

Why didn't the temple authorities arrest Jesus when this happen?

I think you should re-read it, LostSoul, and keep it in context.

I once read an article concerning the "eye for an eye" passage in Matthew called something like, "Jesus' Third Way." It was very interesting. It argued that Jesus was not violent, but not pacifist either really.

Example: The 'turning the cheek' line has social references behind it. To slap someone on the right cheek (with your right hand), you use the back of your hand. This was derogatory because it implied that you the slapper were superior to the "slappee." But to tell the slapper to slap your left cheek, well, that would force them to to use the front of their hand, implying that you were equal. To tell someone to slap the left side of your face is essentially a verbal slap in the face. It's not violent, but it's not "oh please walk all over me" pacifist either.

gnostic said:

In Matthews, Mark and Luke, it only mentioned that Jesus overturned some tables and drove out the merchants, but not how; there was no mention of whip.

John did mention whip, but only in reference to driving out the "sheep and cattle" (2:15); John's gospel was the only one to mention the whip. It doesn't say anywhere that he used the whip on the moneychangers; only that he overturn their tables (2:15). Had the whip injured anyone, at least one gospel would have mentioned it. He did ordered the merchants selling pigeons to take their birds and leave the temple (2:16), but again, no whip was applied to anyone, except upon the sheep and cattle.

Why didn't the temple authorities arrest Jesus when this happen?

I think you should re-read it, LostSoul, and keep it in context.

Click to expand...

Well maybe your correct. Or maybe you can read anything into the Bible that you like. :banghead3

Lost Soul said:

Well maybe your correct. Or maybe you can read anything into the Bible that you like. :banghead3

Click to expand...

If Jesus was not a tough guy why didn't they just kick his ***?

That's what I said. Why didn't the temple guards arrest him, at this incidence?

You don't have to take my words for it. Read it yourself.

Here is King James version from John:

2:14 And found in the temple those that sold oxen and sheep and doves, and the changers of money sitting: 2:15 And when he had made a scourge of small cords, he drove them all out of the temple, and the sheep, and the oxen; and poured out the changers' money, and overthrew the tables; 2:16 And said unto them that sold doves, Take these things hence; make not my Father's house an house of merchandise.

Click to expand...

Here is the Good News Bible of the same passages:

2:14 There in the Temple he found men selling cattle, sheep, pigeons, and also the money-changers sitting at their tables. 2:15 So he made a whip from the cords and drove all the animals out of the Temple, both the sheep and the cattle; he overturned the tables of the money-changers and scattered their coins; 2:16 and he ordered the men who sold the pigeons, "Take them out of here! Stop making my Father's house a market-place!"

Click to expand...

What I wrote to you before, I kept it in context. The whip wasn't used upon the money-changers, but on the cattle and sheep. He had only overturn their tables. The gospel of John was the only one that mentioned a whip.

What you said about using the whip on the money-changers is taking the context out of those passages.

Lost Soul said:

Not when he was whipping the money exchangers out of the temple!

Click to expand...

He was doing God's will (in my view). That's why I put other. He opposes violence unless it's God's will.

Daniel Burbank said:

He was doing God's will (in my view). That's why I put other. He opposes violence unless it's God's will.

Click to expand...

Why wouldn't this option have worked, then?
How would Jesus' followers know whether it was God's will for them to commit violence or not? What types of violence might a follower of Jesus commit that would be God's will?

Jesus said, "All they that take the sword shall perish with the sword." Matthew 26:52 Yet how many so-called "rightous wars" have been fought in the name of Christ! If one brandishes his sword against his enemy, that act excites his foe to use any wepon he can get to defend himself. War breeds war. War can be outmoded by practicing a doctrine of peace in international life. Aggressive wars should be effectively outlawed. Wars of defense are not wrong, but a far greater achievement is to be able to conquer one's would-be conquerors by nonviolet resistance. Jesus could have borrowed twelve legions of divinely armed angels to destroy his enemies (Matthew 26:53) but he chose the way of nonviolence. He conquered not only the Roman Empire, but makind, by his love and by saying: "Father, forgive them; for they know not waht they do." (Luke 23:34) The nonviolent Jesus, allowing his blood to be shed and his body to be destroyed, immortalized himself in the eyes of God and man, A nation that can maintain its independence by peaceful medthod wil be the greatest example and savior to the arming and warring naitons of earth.

Gandi mantained, however that it is better to resist with physical force than to to be a coward.* If a man and his family, for example, are attacked by a criminal who levels his gun at them, and the man (being actuated by inward fear) says: "Gunman, I forgive you for what ever yo may do,"and then flies away, leaving his helpless family- these actions cannot be a display of nonviolenve but of cowardice. According to Ghandi, a man in such a situation should resort even to force rather than hide his act of coward under a mask of nonviolence.

* I accept the interpretation of ahimsa, namely, that it is not merely a negative state of harmlessnes bu it is a positive state of love, of doing good even to the evildoer. But it dose not mean helping the evildoer to continue the wrong or tolerating it by passive acquiescence. On the contrary, love, the active state of ahimsa, requires you to resist the wrongdoer by dissociationg yourself from him even though it may offend him or injure him physically." -Mahatma Ghandi

Taken from; God Talks With Arjuna: The Bhagavad Gita by Paramahansa Yogananda

Ardent Listener said:

Jesus said, "All they that take the sword shall perish with the sword." Matthew 26:52 Yet how many so-called "rightous wars" have been fought in the name of Christ! If one brandishes his sword against his enemy, that act excites his foe to use any wepon he can get to defend himself. War breeds war. War can be outmoded by practicing a doctrine of peace in international life. Aggressive wars should be effectively outlawed. Wars of defense are not wrong, but a far greater achievement is to be able to conquer one's would-be conquerors by nonviolet resistance. Jesus could have borrowed twelve legions of divinely armed angels to destroy his enemies (Matthew 26:53) but he chose the way of nonviolence. He conquered not only the Roman Empire, but makind, by his love and by saying: "Father, forgive them; for they know not waht they do." (Luke 23:34) The nonviolent Jesus, allowing his blood to be shed and his body to be destroyed, immortalized himself in the eyes of God and man, A nation that can maintain its independence by peaceful medthod wil be the greatest example and savior to the arming and warring naitons of earth.

Gandi mantained, however that it is better to resist with physical force than to to be a coward.* If a man and his family, for example, are attacked by a criminal who levels his gun at them, and the man (being actuated by inward fear) says: "Gunman, I forgive you for what ever yo may do,"and then flies away, leaving his helpless family- these actions cannot be a display of nonviolenve but of cowardice. According to Ghandi, a man in such a situation should resort even to force rather than hide his act of coward under a mask of nonviolence.

* I accept the interpretation of ahimsa, namely, that it is not merely a negative state of harmlessnes bu it is a positive state of love, of doing good even to the evildoer. But it dose not mean helping the evildoer to continue the wrong or tolerating it by passive acquiescence. On the contrary, love, the active state of ahimsa, requires you to resist the wrongdoer by dissociationg yourself from him even though it may offend him or injure him physically." -Mahatma Ghandi

Taken from; God Talks With Arjuna: The Bhagavad Gita by Paramahansa Yogananda

Click to expand...

I guess his going to the the cross rather than calling on his angels would make Jesus a pacifist. Thanks for posting this. But if you don't mind my asking you this...........Just what kind of a Catholic are you who quotes not only the Bible, but Ghandi and out of the Bhagavad Gita?

I voted that he was a pacifist and taught non-violence HOWEVER I think he was a revolutionary as well. He definitely broke the status quo and....well......changed the world forever.

Assuming of course that biblical accounts are even slightly accurate.

"Dear friends: Clear and emphatic as are the instructions which our departed Master has reiterated in countless Tablets bequeathed by Him to His followers throughout the world, a few, owing to the restricted influence of the Cause in the West, have been purposely withheld from the body of His occidental disciples, who, despite their numerical inferiority, are now exercising such a preponderating influence in the direction and administration of its affairs. I feel it, therefore, incumbent upon me to stress, now that the time 64 is ripe, the importance of an instruction which, at the present stage of the evolution of our Faith, should be increasingly emphasized, irrespective of its application to the East or to the West. And this principle is no other than that which involves the non-participation by the adherents of the Faith of Bahá'u'lláh, whether in their individual capacities or collectively as local or national Assemblies, in any form of activity that might be interpreted, either directly or indirectly, as an interference in the political affairs of any particular government. Whether it be in the publications which they initiate and supervise; or in their official and public deliberations; or in the posts they occupy and the services they render; or in the communications they address to their fellow-disciples; or in their dealings with men of eminence and authority; or in their affiliations with kindred societies and organizations, it is, I am firmly convinced, their first and sacred obligation to abstain from any word or deed that might be construed as a violation of this vital principle. Theirs is the duty to demonstrate, on one hand, the nonpolitical character of their Faith, and to assert, on the other, their unqualified loyalty and obedience to whatever is the considered judgment of their respective governments."
(Shoghi Effendi, The World Order of Baha'u'llah)

Baha`i's have a curious duality in their obedience to government.

Regards,
Scott