Anonymous Asks (343)

“Was Jesus a pacifist?”

As defined by Merriam-Webster, pacifism is “opposition to war and violence as a means of resolving disputes”, often manifesting in a refusal to participate in military action. Extreme pacifists even exclude self-defense as an option when under attack.

Ready for one of my infamous yes-and-no answers? Okay, here we go …

Promoting Pacifism?

Those who say Jesus never approved of the use of deadly force or self-defense have a few scriptures they can point to that appear to teach it. First, there’s this, from the Sermon on the Mount:

“Do not resist the one who is evil. But if anyone slaps you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also. And if anyone would sue you and take your tunic, let him have your cloak as well. And if anyone forces you to go one mile, go with him two miles.”

and this:

“Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you.”

Critics of war and violence as a means of resolving disputes also point to our Lord’s passivity under arrest and throughout the violent abuses inflicted on him at the hands of the Jews and Roman soldiers.

Problem Passages for Pacifists

However, any interpretation of such passages that concludes Jesus was across the board anti-war, anti-violence or opposed to all forms of self-defense has to account for the following:

• Jesus driving the money-changers from the temple with a whip, an account that appears in all four gospels and an event that probably occurred at least twice.
• Jesus’ statement to Pilate that were his kingdom of this world, his servants would have been fighting on his behalf implies conditions under which violence would be appropriate.
• His advice to his disciples on the eve of his arrest to “let the one who has no sword sell his cloak and buy one”. What were they to do with a sword: shave with it?
• That Jesus praised the faith of the centurion without critiquing his occupation. In fact, Jesus never explicitly condemned war or warriors.
• The phrase “armies of heaven”.
• The rider on a white horse clothed in a robe dipped in blood is unquestionably Jesus Christ.
• The near-universal identification of the “angel of the Lord” with Jesus Christ becomes problematic when Isaiah describes him striking down 185,000 Assyrians, only one of numerous Old Testament incidents in which he took human lives.

There are many more. It much easier to explain the apparently contradictory teachings of the Sermon than to explain away so many instances in both Old and New Testaments that depict our allegedly-pacifist Lord personally engaged in past, present and future acts of violence.

With respect to his personal passivity, we should note that it was under a very specific set of circumstances. In his first advent, his kingdom was “not of this world”. In his second, it will be very much a literal, physical kingdom. Moreover, in his first advent, he came into the world “in order that the world might be saved through him”. His passivity, suffering and death were necessary to accomplish that wonderful and self-sacrificial goal.

Explaining the Teaching of the Sermon

With respect to his teaching in the Sermon on the Mount, we should observe that his instructions to his followers are both individual and limited in scope. If Jesus taught pacifism, it was only under certain specific conditions. As I wrote in an earlier post:

“I dislike arguments from silence, but I cannot help but notice that, like almost every word in the Sermon, this passage has to do with the responsibilities of the individual subject of the kingdom of Jesus Christ, a kingdom that will be inaugurated in blood. Thus we cannot consistently and reasonably pretend that Jesus advocated passivity as a general principle of discipleship or in the pursuit of Christ-likeness. It might be more accurate to say he requires unusual personal restraint and generosity as a testimony to his name in very specific sorts of situations.

Note further that it is your cheek you turn, your tunic and cloak you hand over, you that walks the extra mile and your wallet that you open to give or lend. To try to extend this passage beyond a very personal response to the unfair impositions of the world — to make it, for instance, about how Christian police officers should respond to criminals firing guns at them, or how the government of a country should treat an act of war, or about how Christian parents should respond to a home invasion or the rape of their daughter — is not only a very Corban-like copout, it also involves saying things Jesus simply didn’t say.

The Lord here invites his followers to be patient, selfless, a good testimony and not to insist on the personal rights they enjoyed under the Law of Moses. He does not suggest they do it in a way that passes on to others the real world cost of their virtuous behavior.

Nor is this provision of the Sermon a license for limitless passivity. The words ‘Do not resist the one who is evil’ are qualified by the examples that immediately follow: insulting slaps, the loss of a coat, the contents of one’s pockets and a long walk. That’s the scope of what the Lord is commanding. He is not spurring his audience toward martyrdom or penury, but rather generosity, grace, moderation and self-control.

The sons of the kingdom are not obligated to allow themselves to be murdered by criminals or injured so severely that they are no longer able to provide for their families. Such an interpretation puts followers of Christ in the position of offering something they have no right to offer. A husband’s body is under the authority of his wife, and vice versa. It cannot be given away unilaterally — well, not morally at least.”

Our Yes-and-No Answer

So there’s our yes-and-no answer: our Lord was violent in defense of his Father’s honor but consistently passive in defense of his own. Such a policy is entirely consistent with his teaching in the Sermon and his personal conduct during his trial.

Sadly, some situations can only be resolved violently. Jesus never taught otherwise.