Do you think Jesus was a pacifist?

[Carol]

Do you think Jesus was a pacifist? Personally, I did.

In fairness, I'm not of the Christian faith, although I do respect it highly. I've since come across the views of two ladies on MT that happen to be Christian. They both believe that Jesus was not a pacifist.

What are your points of view? Do you think Jesus was a pacifist? Does this point of view reflect how you approach your training at all?

Please be respectful to all faiths and backgrounds if you reply...thank you! :asian:

 

[SFC JeffJ]

I have to agree that he wasn't a pacifist. From a historical perspective, he was crucified by the Romans. That leads me to believe he was at least a political agitator, if not fomenting rebellion outright. If he had truly been handed over to the Jewish religious hierarchy for heretical views, he would have been stoned.

Also, isn't there something, in the gospel of Mark or Matthew, about selling your coat to buy a sword to defend your family?

JeffJ

 

[Jade Tigress]

He most certainly was not a pacifist. While preferring peace, He would not sway from what was right to avoid conflict.

 

[mrhnau]

I have to agree that he wasn't a pacifist. From a historical perspective, he was crucified by the Romans. That leads me to believe he was at least a political agitator, if not fomenting rebellion outright. If he had truly been handed over to the Jewish religious hierarchy for heretical views, he would have been stoned.

Also, isn't there something, in the gospel of Mark or Matthew, about selling your coat to buy a sword to defend your family?

JeffJ

He said to them, "But now if you have a purse, take it, and also a bag; and if you don't have a sword, sell your cloak and buy one. It is written: 'And he was numbered with the transgressors'; and I tell you that this must be fulfilled in me. Yes, what is written about me is reaching its fulfillment." The disciples said, "See, Lord, here are two swords."
"That is enough," he replied.

Political agitator? Not directly against the Romans, which Jews had expected him to be. More of a religious agitator. Seemed to pine mostly against the Jews in what he said. He did advocate buying swords, but spoke negatively to Peter when he used one to chop off a guys ear (later in Luke). What Jesus seemed to advocate most was not an overturning of the government of the time, but a spiritual revolution. Government overturning comes later, if you believe the book of Revelation and the second coming of Jesus

I don't think he was a pacifist. Most moving to me would be when he took out a whip and overturned the money changers tables in the temple. Drove
out the people.

When it was almost time for the Jewish Passover, Jesus went up to Jerusalem. In the temple courts he found men selling cattle, sheep and doves, and others sitting at tables exchanging money. So he made a whip out of cords, and drove all from the temple area, both sheep and cattle; he scattered the coins of the money changers and overturned their tables. To those who sold doves he said, "Get these out of here! How dare you turn my Father's house into a market!"
His disciples remembered that it is written: "Zeal for your house will consume me."

 

[Kensai]

I have to agree that he wasn't a pacifist. From a historical perspective, he was crucified by the Romans. That leads me to believe he was at least a political agitator, if not fomenting rebellion outright. If he had truly been handed over to the Jewish religious hierarchy for heretical views, he would have been stoned.

Also, isn't there something, in the gospel of Mark or Matthew, about selling your coat to buy a sword to defend your family?

JeffJ

In fairness though, it didn't take much to have oneself crucified by the Romans. Depending on a particular Emperor, men could be taken from the streets and forced into gladiatorial contests, or slavery, Roman law was often at the whim of whichever Imperator ruled at the time. Terrific race the Romans...

However, as to whether Christ was a pacifist or not... I'm insufficiently informed to post my opinion... Don't want to hazard a guess either...

 

[Kacey]

I suppose it would depend on what you mean by "pacifist". Jesus was an activist, and he used the methods appropriate to his time and place in history. Had Jesus been born in another time, his methods could well have been different, and yet had the same intent. I suspect - and this is my opinion only - that he used the minimum force necessary to get the desired effect, but that, in that time and place, the pacifistic non-violence of, say, Gandhi, would have been inappropriate and ineffective; likewise, the casual violence of the conqueror would have been equally inappropriate and ineffective. The definitions of "pacifist", "activist", "agitator", and so on vary with the time, place, and experiences of the culture, and looking back that far in history, they may not be appropriate to use now in defining then.

 

[Andy Moynihan]

By my definition of "pacifist", he was not.

 

[John Brewer]

I believe Jesus was a pacifist in matters involving pride or the opinions others had of him, however when it comes to defending yourself, your family or somone who cannot defend themselves it seems his teachings have no problem with that.

Blessed be the LORD my Rock, Who trains my hands for war, And my fingers for battle--
Psalm 144:1

Ecclesiastes 3:8
A time to love, And a time to hate; A time of war, And a time of peace.

Greater love has no one than this, than to lay down one's life for his friends.(John15:13) NIV

 

[terryl965]

I would say no.
terry

 

[mantis]

judging from christians i'd say he definitely wasnt. and good luck getting a conclusion out of the bible about that

 

[heretic888]

Do you think Jesus was a pacifist? Personally, I did.

I don't think "Jesus Christ" existed in the first place, so it's something of a moot point to me.

To be entirely honest, the "Jesus Christ" character of the Gospels is a mythical composite that was created by taking bits and pieces from several Jewish and Gentile sources. Some of these were militant sources, as with Zealot religious literature. Others were pacifist sources, as with Essene and Middle Platonic religious literature.

The resulting product is a hodgepodge of a number of different philosophies and ideologies, which is why many a commentator has rightly pointed out that the Gospel Jesus is fundamentally self-contradictory and illogical.

So, was "Jesus Christ" a pacifist??

My answer would be that some of the authors that created the composite Jesus were pacifists, and some were not.

Laterz.

 

[punisher73]

Most of the time when people say that Jesus was a pacifist and was against fighting/defending yourself they use the Sermon on the Mount, "If someone strikes you on the right cheek, give to them also the other.

That verse is not examined enough because it is actually VERY specific in what it says. It says the "right cheek" (Matthew 5:39) There are only two ways to do that 1) Use your left hand, which was considered unclean by the jews or 2) a backhanded strike with the right. The culture at the time you would backhand a slave and/or someone you thought was very much beneath you.

If you offer the person the other cheek, you were in a sense telling them that they had a choice to make. 1) either back down from you or 2) acknowledge by striking you that you were equals. Either way you are actually standing up for yourself in doing so. Not just being a doormat for them to walk on.

The other things in the sermon on the mount also are in effect ways to turn the tables on someone. For example, if someone sues you for your coat give to them also your shirt. The words in the orginal, the "shirt" was your underclothes. So a better way to say it in modern concepts would be if someone sues your for your shirt and pants give to them also your underwear. Again, in Jewish society nudity was a big disgrace and the only thing more disgraceful was the person who caused the nudity. Again, not saying to be a doormat but to stand up for yourself.

Also, from the Sermon on the Mount "Blessed are the meek, for they shall inherit the earth." We have a VERY different definition of what meek means than the ancient greek word. Meek to the greeks was a virtue of only getting angry at the appropriate things. So to have a righteous anger over a legitimate thing was very good. Loosing your temper over stupid things was not.

Only by being able to stand up for yourself and defend yourself can you truly make a decision to be a pacifist and what to do. Too many people say they are "pacifists", and it's just a case of them being too cowardly to stand up for themselves so they avoid all conflict under the guise of pacifism. As far as Jesus begin a pacifist or not, I'd encourage you to seek out that answer for yourself by what he did and said and apply it to what you think a pacifist is. My opinion is that Jesus would prefer not to use violence but he did not reject all forms of violence (driving out the tax collectors in the temple).

 

[IcemanSK]

Great thread, Carol!

I find no quick or simple answer to that question. When I look at the Gospels as a whole (Including Luke 22 & the turn the other cheek verse in Matt 5) I don't see Jesus as a zealot ready to call for a violent overthrow of the Romans. Nor do I read of someone who says the Kingdom of God can be brought about by force. The early Church after his death hid for fear that they would be next, rather taking up arms. Even after the Resurection the Church went underground because of the persecution they received. They chose martyrdom in an effort to be "like Christ", rather than to fight for power or control.

Like punisher73, I see that Jesus did not reject all forms of violence. But I would say that I think He'd be more on the scale toward pacifist than on the "Bible in one hand, rifle in the other" of some of my Christian brothers & sisters.

 

[Carol]

Great thread, Carol!

I find no quick or simple answer to that question. When I look at the Gospels as a whole (Including Luke 22 & the turn the other cheek verse in Matt 5) I don't see Jesus as a zealot ready to call for a violent overthrow of the Romans. Nor do I read of someone who says the Kingdom of God can be brought about by force. The early Church after his death hid for fear that they would be next, rather taking up arms. Even after the Resurection the Church went underground because of the persecution they received. They chose martyrdom in an effort to be "like Christ", rather than to fight for power or control.

Like punisher73, I see that Jesus did not reject all forms of violence. But I would say that I think He'd be more on the scale toward pacifist than on the "Bible in one hand, rifle in the other" of some of my Christian brothers & sisters.

Thanks for the props Iceman! :asian:

Its very very interesting...coming from an eastern faith, some of the stories in my own scriptures carry similar messages to those told in the Bible. Yet many of my holy writings are heavily metaphoric, and are to be meditated on to explore how the writings apply to the path in front of oneself. Many of the scriptures have an undercurrent that implies (simplifying here) the root of evil is some/all forms of indulgence, and to stay on the path of right living, one must fight and eliminate that indulgence.

By comparison, Christianity to me always seemed to be a bit dogmatic, full of Thou Shalts, Thou Shalt Nots, and Jesus Saids. Dogmatic is not a bad thing, IMO. Christianity struck me as a faith where it was easier to "understand the rules", as they were spelled out more clearly.

This is shattering my perception of Christianity. For when I read things like "only when necessary" and "only what is necessary", I'm seeing more paralells with the "fight indulgence" values of my own faith. I'm also discovering that Jesus was perhaps not quite as dogmatic and easy to understand as I thought.

Forgive my, er, indulgence here I dunno about you all but I am finding the answers to what seemed to be a simple question.....to be very complex and very fascinating. I hope more of you continue to post your views, and please continue to keep the respectful tone. :asian:

 

[matt.m]

Jesus was not a pacifist. Look at the table overturnings at the temple for instance. There are many other things that have been brought up already so I will not repeat, however Jesus was no pacifist.

He wanted love, compassion and understanding among all men.

 

[heretic888]

I find no quick or simple answer to that question. When I look at the Gospels as a whole (Including Luke 22 & the turn the other cheek verse in Matt 5) I don't see Jesus as a zealot ready to call for a violent overthrow of the Romans.

Yet, we see "Jesus" using decidedly Zealot terminology and symbolism throughout the Gospels ("I come to bring the sword", etc). The Revelation of John, in particular, was probably written by a Zealot (and it shows). Entire books have been written exploring the Zealot contributions to primitive Christianity, but I must admit I'm not all that interested in the subject myself.

Personally, I believe that certain groups of early Christians were probably more Zealot-esque than others, and that the early Catholic Church, seeking to get everybody to play along, made use of material that was popular among a number of local groups. This included both militaristic and pacifistic material.

Nor do I read of someone who says the Kingdom of God can be brought about by force. The early Church after his death hid for fear that they would be next, rather taking up arms. Even after the Resurection the Church went underground because of the persecution they received. They chose martyrdom in an effort to be "like Christ", rather than to fight for power or control.

Actually, Christians were not widely persecuted until the middle of the third century. Even then, it was only very briefly (less than a decade).

Laterz.

 

[Touch Of Death]

The temple issues were not issues until Christ was already dead. This was a first century political use of Christs name.
Sean

 

[Jenna]

Typically it comes down to personal belief and there are several already cited.. but what do I care bout that.. I believe what I believe and you believe what you believe.

I do not believe Jesus was a pacifist though the often cited verse to support that is Matthew 26:52..

then said Jesus unto him (Simon Peter).. put up again thy sword into his place.. for all they that take the sword shall perish with the sword
​

Well that seems plain that Jesus is not an advocate of violence even at the time he is to be led away to his death and but Jesus did not tell Peter to dump out his sword altogether but rather put it neatly back in the scabbard or whatever which is akin to saying.. Not now my man.. this is not the right time.. well that is my take on that but moreover the clearest note for me that Jesus did not care for pacifism was Matthew 26:53 54..

thinkest thou that I cannot now pray to my Father.. and he shall presently give me more than twelve legions of angels? .. But how then shall the scriptures be fulfilled.. that thus it must be?
​

So not only is Jesus saying if he did not have a glorious mission he would defend himself but he is saying he would call down a whole shedload of angels to kick up an holy stink.. but he is eternally bound to what would APPEAR to be pacifism in order to protect the predeterminations of the scriptures..

Was Jesus a pacifist? I do not believe so.. anyway do not listen to me.. what do I know bout that.. cuckoo.. crazy woman

Yr most obdt hmble srvt,
Jenna

 

[Carol]

Typically it comes down to personal belief and there are several already cited.. but what do I care bout that.. I believe what I believe and you believe what you believe.

That's what this thread is all about...sharing thoughts.

 

[John Brewer]

That's what this thread is all about...sharing thoughts.

Great Thread!