Was Jesus a pacifist?
The question touches on something deeper than a political label. The word "pacifist" belongs to the modern world of movements and societies; what Scripture reveals is something far more radical — a Person who embodied a wholly different kingdom, governed by wholly different principles than the kingdoms of this world.
The Principle: Grace Over Retaliation
The Lord Jesus explicitly set aside the Old Testament principle of retaliation. William Kelly expounds this in his article on Matthew 5:38-41:
William KellyThe Lord here advances beyond all Jewish and indeed human thought, when He enjoins on His disciples patient grace on all kinds of inflicted wrong. To resist it is forbidden. He cites from the law the principle of talion, as it is styled, or retaliation, expressly to abandon it. It was particularly open to abuse; but even when applied with the strictest justice, and acting as a powerful check on human vindictiveness, how far was it from the mind of heaven which Christ was manifesting on earth, and laying down as the only conduct proper to the sons of His Father!
Kelly shows that Christ Himself was the supreme demonstration of this — and went far beyond what He taught:
No! the Lord yielded to wrong instead of resisting it; and such is the true calling of the Christian. ... How much better to lose one's clothes than consistency with Christ? The spirit of the injunction goes farther than the one cheek or the outer coat. What men seek is to evade all suffering and hold their human rights in defiance of His words, thus losing the reality of Christianity and retaining not even its semblance.
A Kingdom That Does Not Fight
The key distinction is between Christ's kingdom and the kingdoms of this world. J. T. Mawson builds his argument on Christ's own words before Pilate:
J. T. MawsonWhen arraigned before Pilate the Lord said, "IF MY KINGDOM WERE OF THIS WORLD, THEN WOULD MY SERVANTS FIGHT" (John 18:36). And that statement from the lips of Eternal Truth should be sufficient to show how great is the gulf that lies between the kingdoms of this world and His kingdom who was led as a lamb to the slaughter, and who forbade the valiant Peter to draw the sword on His behalf.
On Peter in the garden, Mawson writes:
Peter believed that the hour had come in which to strike a blow for the Lord, but he was rebuked for having thoughts so contrary to the spirit of his Master. Jesus said, "Put up again thy sword into his place: for all who take the sword shall perish by the sword." That saying was not addressed to the world in general, nor did it refer to nations quarrelling one with another, it was addressed to the thought in the hearts of His disciples, that His kingdom was to be established by the sword.
And the bed-rock principle of that kingdom:
Now the bed-rock principle for the Lord's kingdom is SELF-SACRIFICING LOVE. ... By the world He was a rejected and suffering King, but He did not assert His rights; He was willing to suffer and to give His life a ransom for all. It was by weakness that He was to be victorious.
Not Merely "Pacifism" — Something Higher
C. H. Mackintosh is perhaps the most direct. In his notes on Deuteronomy, he contrasts the Old Testament economy of righteousness with the New Testament economy of grace:
C. H. MackintoshThe moment we open the pages of the New Testament, and hearken to the teachings, and mark the actings of the Son of God, we find ourselves on entirely new ground, and in a new atmosphere. In a word, we are in the atmosphere and on the ground of pure, unqualified grace.
After quoting the Sermon on the Mount at length — "resist not evil," "love your enemies," "be ye therefore perfect" — he draws the conclusion:
Is it not as plain as a sunbeam to the reader that for a Christian to do these things is to act in flagrant opposition to the teaching and example of his Lord?
On the specific question of military service, Mackintosh writes:
Our 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? ... Did He ever take the sword? Did He come to destroy men's lives? Did He not say, "He that takes the sword shall perish by the sword"? And again, "I say to you, that ye resist not evil." How do such words agree with going to war?
And he anticipates the inevitable objection — what if everyone adopted this?
If all were to adopt those heavenly principles, there would be no more war and hence we should not need to fight. But it is not our business to reason as to the results of obedience; we have only to obey the Word of our blessed Master and walk in His steps.
Kelly on the Christian's Separate Position
William Kelly, in his lectures on Matthew, makes the crucial distinction that Christ's words are not addressed to governments but to those who belong to a heavenly kingdom while walking on earth:
William KellyIt is clear the Lord has no reference here to what governments have to do. The New Testament is written for the Christian, for that which has a separate existence and a peculiar calling in the midst of earthly systems and peoples. It belongs to those who are heavenly while they are walking upon earth.
He summarises the whole principle:
Grace is not the vindication of self nor the punishment of a wrong, but the endurance of evil and the triumph of good over it. Christ is speaking of what a Christian has to put up with from the world through which he passes.
War and Nations — A Distinct Question
H. C. Anstey, writing in the Bible Treasury on the Society of Friends' appeal against war, agrees that war is contrary to the Christian spirit but rejects the idea that Christians can reform the world into peace:
H. C. AnsteyThat war is wholly opposed to the christian spirit, as well as to all the precepts of our Lord, no soul subject to scripture will deny. ... Among Christians it is absolutely unjustifiable. But ... scripture then states, with a seriousness too real to be trifled with, that "this present evil world" ... will not become christian, but be found in open antagonism against God.
Mawson makes the same point with a vivid illustration:
"Certainly not," he answered, "I should be for striking back swiftly and hard." And his own answer proved to him that his view of things had been entirely wrong. ... If a nation acted upon Christian principles it could not strike back when stricken; it would possess neither battleships nor sword to strike back with. ... It is possible for the individual Christian to willingly and joyfully carry out these precepts, but for a nation it is impossible, for, as we have said, Christianity is an individual and not a national matter.
J. N. Darby on the Kingdom's Heavenly Character
J. N. Darby grounds the Christian's non-resistance in the very nature of the Church's heavenly calling:
J. N. Darby"My kingdom is not of this world: if it were, then would my servants fight, that I should not be delivered to the Jews." As such, consequently, they have no power. The result is, that they are formed into a spiritual community; they are raised, by their Head and centre and source of hope and object of allegiance being in heaven, to be heavenly.
And in his notes on Colossians, Darby quotes the Lord's words as defining the Christian's path through this world:
"But I say unto you that ye resist not evil; but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also." This would not be righteousness, but Christ displayed.
Synthesis
To call Jesus a "pacifist" is to squeeze Him into a political category that is far too small. These writers would say something much stronger: Jesus did not merely oppose war — He embodied and taught a life that operates on an entirely different plane from the world's systems of power. His kingdom is not of this world; therefore His servants do not fight. He did not resist evil; He overcame it by yielding Himself to death. The principle is not merely the absence of violence but the active presence of self-sacrificing love.
At the same time, these writers carefully distinguish between what is proper for the individual Christian — who is called to follow Christ's steps in not resisting evil — and what pertains to earthly governments, which God permits to bear the sword for the restraint of evil (Romans 13). The Christian is not called to reform the world's systems into peace; he is called to display the character of Christ in the midst of a world that will remain hostile until Christ Himself returns to establish His kingdom in power.
So the answer is both yes and more than yes: Jesus taught and lived absolute non-retaliation, not as a political programme, but as the natural expression of a heavenly kingdom governed by grace rather than law, by love rather than rights, by self-surrender rather than self-assertion.