Was Jesus a pacifist?
The question sounds modern, but it lands on old ground: commentators writing about war, self-defence and military service kept returning to how Jesus Himself acted, what He told His followers to do, and what He said He will do when He returns. The answers they give are not all in one direction — He refused the sword for Himself, yet He will one day wield it, and He never took it out of the hand of government.
He never took the sword
Several writers argue that the question can only be settled by looking at Christ's own conduct, since believers are called to walk as He walked.
C. H. MackintoshOur Lord Jesus Christ has left us an example that we should follow His steps. Can we trace His footsteps into a field of battle? We are called to walk even as He walked. Is it walking like Him to go to war? True, we fail in many things, but if we are asked whether it is right for a Christian to go to war, we can only answer the question by looking at Christ. How did He act? What did He teach? Did He ever take the sword? Did He come to destroy men's lives? Did He not say, "All who take the sword will perish by the sword"? And again, "I say to you, do not resist the one who is evil."
The reason: a kingdom not from this world
The refusal was not a rule about violence in general. It followed from where His kingdom belongs — and the same writer notes that fighting would have been perfectly fitting if it belonged here.
C. H. Mackintosh"Put your sword back into its place. For all who take the sword will perish by the sword." And again, in another Gospel, "Jesus said to Peter, 'Put your sword into its sheath; shall I not drink the cup that the Father has given me?'" Again, our Lord says to Pilate, "My kingdom is not of this world. If my kingdom were of this world, my servants would have been fighting" — it would be perfectly consistent for them to do so — "But my kingdom is not from the world" — and therefore it would be wholly out of character, utterly inconsistent, thoroughly wrong for them to fight.
Not passive, but actively good
Turning the cheek is read here as something more energetic than simply absorbing harm.
VariousIt is not that the Christian walks through this world as a merely passive or unfeeling sufferer. The very suffering he may be brought into only brings out the spirit of Christ, who was Himself the perfect expression in His own history of His divine teaching, and who is our perfect Example. So the Apostle could say, "Beloved, never avenge yourselves" — the first thing nature thinks of. But here is the divine way: "If your enemy is hungry, feed him; if he is thirsty, give him something to drink; for by so doing you will heap burning coals on his head." "Do not be overcome by evil, but overcome evil with good."
He was not soft toward evil
The scene in the temple, where He made a whip and drove out the traders, is used to rule out a Jesus who values calm above everything.
The Bible TreasuryThe Lord Jesus took the whip of cords and drove them all out of the temple, for "the wisdom from above is first pure, then peaceable." First pure. There is no such thing as peace at any price in the word of God. Holiness and peace — what God has joined together let no man separate.
His own words about bringing a sword rather than peace are read the same way — as a warning of conflict, not a promise of quiet:
William KellyIn view of His rejection the Lord prepared the Twelve for war, not for peace in the meantime. "Do not think that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I have not come to bring peace, but a sword" (Matt. 10:34).
Government still carries the sword
Commentators are careful to say that Christ's refusal of force does not disarm the state.
William KellyIt is mere delusion to suppose that Christianity takes away a government's authority to punish wrongdoers with the sword. Paul, as we have seen, fully recognises that power, and describes the ruler as one authorised by God to punish evil.
The personal and the judicial are kept apart by a practical illustration:
Leslie M. GrantChristians personally should show grace in response to bad treatment, but a judge would have no right to order a person who had been cheated out of $10,000 to show grace to the cheat by giving him another $10,000.
At His return He judges and makes war
The same Christ is described very differently in the closing scenes of Scripture.
Hamilton SmithHis first coming was in circumstances of weakness and lowly grace, as a little baby. The next coming will be in power and glory... At His first coming He was marked by "grace and truth" that brought salvation to men. At the second coming He will come forth as Faithful and True to execute judgment; so at once we read, "in righteousness he judges and makes war."
Summary
- The sword refused — Jesus never took it, and told Peter to put his away; His example, not a theory about force, is the argument these writers use.
- The sword explained — He did not fight because His kingdom is not from this world; if it were, His servants fighting for Him would be entirely fitting.
- The sword replaced — the follower's answer to wrong is not passivity but active good: feed the enemy, overcome evil with good.
- The sword delegated — God still puts it in the hand of government to punish wrongdoing, so personal grace and public justice are not the same duty.
- The sword returned — the One who came in lowly grace will come again in righteousness to judge and make war; commentators note that His words also brought division, not peace at any price.