It is my opinion that war is a dreadful thing. I wish that wars did not need to take place. But reality is they do. At least, they do need to take place so long as there are wicked people committing atrocities who need to be stopped. While this post is not meant to support any particular war, I do want to help clear up some common misconceptions about what the Bible teaches on related issues. There are many unintelligent bumper stickers driving around out there, but some of the most mind-numbing are those that make it sound as though Jesus is, across-the-board, anti-capital punishment and anti-war (he ends up looking more like Mr. Rogers than like the revolutionary we see on the pages of the Bible). Some of my favorites are, “What would Jesus bomb?” “A war against evil is a contradiction in terms.” “When God said, ‘Love your enemies,’ he didn’t mean ‘Kill them.’” “Jesus is a pacifist” “What part of ‘Thou shalt not kill’ don’t you understand?” Obviously, there are fuller arguments behind each of these bumper-sticker assertions which I won’t address, but I would like to sort out a bit of the general confusion behind several of them.
The big question that might be helpful to ask is, “Is Jesus against taking the life of another person?”
That all depends on how you clarify the question. The first thing that should be pointed out is that there is a difference between killing (taking of a human life) and murder (unjustly taking of a human life). People often times misquote Jesus in the Sermon on the Mount when he mentions the 6th Commandment in the Old Testament as requiring, “You shall not kill.” This is not what it says. C.S. Lewis points out in his chapter on Forgiveness, in Mere Christianity, that there are two words in the Greek, the ordinary word, “to kill,” and the word that Jesus uses here, “to murder.” And Jesus uses the murder word in all three accounts (Mt, Mk, & Lk). So, in the words of Lewis, “All killing is not murder any more than all sexual intercourse is adultery.”Â
Second, we ought to remember that the Bible is supportive of just governments and armies. When soldiers came to John the Baptist, he never even hinted at the suggestion that they ought to resign from the army (Lk 3:14). The same could be said for Jesus’ interaction with the Centurion in the Roman military (Mt 8:5-13). Throughout the New Testament we see clear support given to the government’s role to suppress evil—even to the point of capital punishment (the just taking of human life).Â
CAPITAL PUNISHMENT:
The Apostle Paul reminds us that God has established governmental authorities. He goes on to point out that, “rulers hold no terror for those who do right, but for those who do wrong….For he [the governing authority] is God’s servant to do you good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for he does not bear the sword [capital punishment] for nothing. He is God’s servant, an agent of wrath to bring punishment on the wrongdoer” (Rom 13:3-4). Paul also affirms the governments right to take life when he stands before Roman Governor Festus (Acts 25:11). And Jesus himself acknowledged the legitimacy of capital punishment before Pilate (John 19:11).
The biggest error, then, of interpreting Jesus’ words in the Sermon on the Mount (Mt 5:38-42), is to confuse his commands intended for individuals as though they were meant for civil procedures as well (e.g., Jesus’ comments regarding the ancient near east law of lex talionis, expressed in the Hebrew law as, “an eye for an eye…”).  Both rights and responsibilities which apply to an individual do not necessarily apply to the state, and vice versa.Â
The belief that if we as a nation would just ‘beat our guns into tractors’ our enemies would be sure to follow, is dangerously naïve. It’s dangerous because it seeks the path of appeasement—of making a bargain with evil (remember what Hitler did to Poland). It’s naïve because it forgets that evil is unquenchable. Like the flames of a fire, it never says, “Enough!”Â
Jesus calls us to love our neighbor as ourselves (Mt 22:39). And I must not forget that loving my neighbor sometimes means protecting him or her, even to the point of fighting and putting my own life on the line. This is the Old Testament command to protect the poor, the disenfranchised, the widow, the orphan, and the helpless.Â
So, is Jesus a pacifist? Does he consider all acts of violence to be evil? The above discussion seems to give at least a start to an answer. But to the simplistic question, “Would Jesus go to war?,” we must remind ourselves how the Bible ends. The lamb comes back as a lion. The book of Revelation ends with Jesus going to war on those who propagate evil. So, to the simple question, the simple answer seems to be, “No, Jesus is not a strict pacifist.”
17 Comments on “Is Jesus a pacifist?”
Good job on presinting yet another view of the subject of war and killing. I find myself without any tools when I try to defend the war in Irak. At least we can understand that God did and always pursue and defend against evil.
Thank you for the insight,
Ron Nebelsick
What has always troubled me, and moreso each year around election time, is the wide foggy line between what the Bible says about how the individual Christian should live and act and what a “just government” should look like. I know this is broadening the issue considerably and might require a blog of its own. But, my question, how ever rhetorical it may be, is this: How should Christians really approach politics in America? From my biblical understanding, I don’t believe Jesus would would be a pacifist, nor pro-choice, nor pro-gay civil union rights. And, as you say, he would support capital punishment. But, I also don’t believe he would favor capitalism much, and His statements on taking care of the poor suggest He would support extending our federal welfare programs. A true Christian, in my mind, does not fit into either of our two political parties, for Jesus is extreme on both ends of the American liberal-conservative scale.
So, should we as Christians in America vote according to what we believe to be the most important Christian issues of the moment and let other “lesser” issues fall to the wayside? (If so, what would those issues be?) Or, should we abandon the faulty two-party system altogether, and develop our own Biblical Christian platform? The issue probably can’t be resolved completely in this kind of forum. So I guess maybe for your reply, Brent, I’m wondering how you tackle these issues for yourself? (No, you don’t have to tell me who you’re voting for.)
Brent,
I wonder if the people who sport these “enlightening” bumper stickers know about the unearthly torture that Jesus himself humbled himself to, so that we could have eternal peace. In the idea of bringing eternal life and ultimate peace to the world, more human pain than we can comprehend had to be endured by someone who didn’t even deserve it; he committed no war crimes and murdered no one. (I know I don’t need to tell you this….)
Amanda
Hey Brent,
Thanks for sharing your thoughts on this. I’ll share my perspective below.
Before discussing pacifism, it’s important to agree on a definition of pacifism. While being anti-war is a given, people too often think of hippies in the 60s and equate it with being passive and just wishful thinking. While true in some causes, this is a false assumption for pacifists as a whole. Many pacifists see violence as wrong and instead are very active in various forms of nonviolent peacemaking. I think many people would agree that pacifists like MLK and Ghandi were quite revolutionary.
I do agree that war is dreadful. Even a just war is dreadful. We do live in a fallen world, so I’m willing to concede that some level of violence is necessary to keep people in check. I think, though, that how necessary war is can be debated. For one, many people, including many Christians, don’t take non-violent peacemaking seriously as an effective means of social change and revolution. As such, I see people rushing to see war and violence as the primary solutio, rather than a last resort. I think we abandon creative problem solving for what the world tells us is the solution.
I also agree there is a difference between killing and murder. You define murder as ‘unjustly taking a human life.’ By implication, killing is justly taking a human life. The question remains though: What makes taking a life just? Just because the government or military sactions killing a person or people does not make it just.
Certainly Romans 13, among others, says that a government is to ‘bring punishment on the wrongdoer.’ And that Jesus didn’t tell anyone to resign from the military is a good point. Still, what makes a government just? And if an otherwise just government makes an unjust decision, is it still just? A related question would be, if a person considered to be a Christian leads a government, does that automatically make everything they do just and mean we should unquestionably support every decision they make?
You define capital punishment as ‘the just taking of a human life.’ Again, I question that a government taking a life is just in every instance. In a broad sense though, government-enforced punishment is supported in the Bible. Capital punishment is often used as another term for ‘the death penalty.’ While the nature of whether the death penalty is a good idea or not can be debated, many would agree that the death penalty system in the United States is very flawed.
Is there room for the supernatural? Can the Spirit sometimes work through people in a powerful way that makes violence avoidable? I’ve heard some crazy stories from some Mennonites who made violence unnecessary because of their Christ-like response to people who had the intent to harm them. I just don’t think that God would have us put aside our ideals and look for the easy answer of violence as often as we as a people do. In the end, I agree Jesus isn’t a strict pacifist, but he’s not a pragmatic neo-conservative either.
Further questions: Is modern warfare just? It’s very impersonal and very destructive. I think “Who would Jesus bomb?” is a good question. Are nukes just? What about the carpet bombing of Dresden out of spite? Would Jesus support nuking a billion people if it would save our way of life? Is bombing civilians just? Is pre-emptive way just? The Just War ideologies I’ve read would say the last two would make a war unjust. The US has dropped bombs on civilians. Maybe in the long run, this saved lives. Should we be happy about that? Or should we lament at what seems necessary? Is it just to go to war with one country because their government does evil things but have a trade agreement with another country that does evil things? Is it just to not take further steps to stop genocide in Africa?
Honestly, there is much I don’t have the answer to, but it’s important to me to keep asking questions. And in this case, thanks for putting the topic out there so we could share thoughts.
Seth
I saw a bumper sticker the other day that said “Jesus was a Liberal.” My initial thought was “how ridiculous!” But I thought about it. By today’s standards and with everything that liberalism is, No, Jesus was not a liberal. But in Jesus’ time, Jesus was in fact a liberal. There were many liberals of their time in the bible. Jesus and his disciples challenged the conservative thinking of the day into a new idea that he was the messiah, a radical idea that many didn’t want to accept. Moses liberated the Hebrews from the “conservative” Egyptian way of life that Pharoah had them living under, and it took a radical liberal like Moses to free them.
So by those biblical ideals, I guess Jesus was a righteous liberal. But if by today’s standards of getting away from biblical teachings of homosexuality being wrong, abortion being a sin, etc. then no, Jesus was not a liberal. The world certainly has a way of forming the truth to fit its own agenda.
Amanda
Thank you so much Brent. I was angered (and fearful) the other day when I saw the protestors outside the church with their signs saying something like “Real Christians Don’t Go To War” and something about “silence is cowardice”…..The next few days I couldn’t get the picture my brain took, of these individuals and their signs, out of my mind. Talking with a friend about it later I knew that there was scriptural evidence of God sending His people to war in the old testament, to protect land or stop evil. I was not aware of the examples you gave from the New Testament. I am in support of the war, capital punishment and stopping evil where it stands. Thank you for new enlightenment. Great job!
The heart of the matter lies with how one views the relationship between the individual and government. It is clear that when Jesus tells us to turn to the other cheek he is advocating a pacifistic approach to conflict. Some Christians like to take the easy way out and say this is merely metaphorical. I find it abhorrent that they these same “Christians” classify the statements of Jesus into the categories “literal” and “metaphorical” to better align gospel with their personal political views. It is an easy way out of following Jesus’ words and example. That is what I believe the argument concerning individual vs. governmental responsibility is… a way out. The State is an extension of the individual especially in a representative republic such as ours. To take another human life, whether you call it murder or killing is wrong and in complete conflict with Jesus’ example. I frankly don’t care what John the Baptist or Paul said or did when I have Jesus telling me NOT to answer violence with violence in no uncertain terms.
Dan,
A couple comments:
(1) I offered several brief “arguments.†You seemed to offer a mere “assertionâ€â€”that the distinction between individual and civic rights/responsibilities is “a way out.†I’d be curious to see you interact with my arguments by offering an opposing “arguments.â€
(2) You also seem to assert that ‘all’ killing is murder. So, do you mean to tell me that every time someone is killed it is unjust (i.e.,“murderâ€), and that the one taking the life is therefore evil for doing so? Is God evil then? Afterall, He takes life. Is the police officer evil for using lethal force to stop the rapist who breaks into your house? I have a feeling that you would not be entirely consistent with your initial views, and would readily call 911 should such an assailant ever break into your home.
(3) Finally, I’m a bit puzzled by your comment that “I frankly don’t care what John the Baptist or Paul said or did when I have Jesus telling me NOT to answer violence with violence in no uncertain terms.†Dan, are you suggesting that we should give some sort of greater weight to the New Testament authors when they report the words of Jesus then when they report all the other words? After all, you do realize that guys like Luke (i.e., your reference of Jesus’ turning cheek comment in Lk 6:29) were NOT actually disciples of Jesus, and that guys like Luke investigated Jesus’ teaching through interviews with those who were Jesus’ followers? (see Luke 1:1). In fact, Luke was the Apostle Paul’s traveling companion (see the book of Acts) and gathered large amounts of his information from Paul (along with others) in his writings (Luke & Acts). So, please help me understand this idea which suggests that—while Jesus didn’t actually write any of the New Testament—you’re willing to accept the words of Jesus’ followers when they claim to tell you what Jesus said, but distrust them everywhere else.
Brent,
It’s your blog, so you can respond to posts however you like. However, you aren’t being fair to Dan here.
(1) He gives a fine argument for why, as a follower of Jesus, he thinks state killing is wrong. Your initial response is to denigrate his argument as “a mere ‘assertion.'” Could you write a paragraph that is any more “condescending”?
(2) “Is God evil then?” Are you kidding, Brent? He is talking about violence perpetrated by our government, not God. Your questions make a series of wild logical leaps (calling 911 is condoning lethal force?). Then you suggest that he is a hypocrite based on views that you merely suspect him of having. Maybe you should let him answer before you question his integrity.
(3) It is totally reasonable for Dan to trust someone’s ability to quote a Jesus while being suspicious of that person’s ability to correctly interpret what Jesus means. You are capable of quoting John 19:11 accurately, but when you assert that “Jesus himself acknowledged the legitimacy of capital punishment before Pilate,” I think you are completely wrong. I don’t have to accept everything that you say if I accept some things that you say. Your questioning of Dan’s reasonable discretion is a bizarre diversion.
Dan argues that we bear responsibility for the actions of our elected government. If we believe that killing is wrong, we should work to see that view reflected in our government. Thank you, Dan, for not buying the rationalizations.
Fascinating debate, and one worthy of both debate and mutual respect for conflicting viewpoints. To me, the core of this issue (and Brent & Dan’s conflict) revolves around some kind of conflation between the Kingdom of God and the Kingdom of Caesar. Christ verbally divides these two kingdoms multiple times (“Give unto Caesar…,” “My Kingdom is not of this world…”), and throughout his ministry refuses to allow his mission to become associated with political aims (such as the Sadducee machinations or Simon’s zealotry). This, in my opinion, represents a clear warning about associating earthly political goals with God’s purposes (and if we need further proof of this danger, see Christian history post-Constantine).
This is where things get dicey. If America is truly a “Christian nation,” then the Kingdom of God’s purposes would be at the forefront of all of our agendas, and all our wars and killings would be truly just. If, however, there’s even a remote possibility that America does NOT represent the Kingdom of God incarnate in the political sphere, then all our wars and killings are simply wars and killings, and no more spiritually justified than Russia’s, China’s or for that matter Iran’s. Is Christ a pacifist? Maybe, maybe not. And certainly if He comes upon a white horse calling me to take up a sword, I will follow. The last instruction he gave in this regard, however, was to lay it down, and I personally feel obligated to obey even if modern Caesars tell me to do otherwise.
Gavin, in response to your points:
(1) You write that Dan “gives a fine argument for why, as a follower of Jesus, he thinks state killing is wrong.†Gavin, simply put, an “argument†is a conclusion supported by premises or reasons why another should accept the conclusion. An “assertion†is nothing more than a conclusion. In response to the “arguments†that I offered, Dan simply stated his belief/conclusion that my argument was “an easy way out.†His words were, “That is what I believe the argument concerning individual vs. governmental responsibility is… a way out.†However, he didn’t give supporting reasons why my argument was false. Please help me see where Dan’s “argument†is in his original post. I think you’re reading a lot more into Dan’s words than were actually there.
You also commented that my response was “condescending.†Do you mean that the tone that came through my response was condescending, or that I was so by pointing out that Dan wasn’t making a strong case for his belief? I reread my words and I don’t see any condescension, nor was I intending any. However, if any were perceived that way—especially by Dan—I do apologize.
(2) Re: logical leaps — God being evil or killing – requesting a police officer to use lethal force if necessary: Gavin, I don’t believe I’m making any logical leaps. Dan seems to blanketly believe that all killing is evil. Well, I tried to offer two examples (God & calling 911) where I think it is more difficult to make such an unqualified assertion. Gavin, you yourself made that statement at the end of your response, “If we believe that killing is wrong, we should work to see that view reflected in our government. “ So, if anyone believes such an unqualified statement that killing is always evil and never acceptable, I can likewise assume that the person would be acting hypocritically if he were to ever call a peace officer (who has the intent to use lethal force when he deems necessary ) because he was being assailed.
(3) You wrote, “It is totally reasonable for Dan to trust someone’s ability to quote a Jesus while being suspicious of that person’s ability to correctly interpret what Jesus means.†Once again, I don’t think you’re reading Dan’s words. Rather, you seem to be filling in between the lines of what Dan actually wrote. What Dan said was, “I frankly don’t care what John the Baptist or Paul said or did when I have Jesus telling me NOT to answer violence with violence in no uncertain terms.†My point, which I think still stands, is that we only have Jesus’ words/deeds through the interpretive grid of other people—those who wrote the Gospels and Epistles. Gavin, you may go on and try to make a more nuanced argument than what Dan is making here, but please don’t put words in his mouth.
Brent,
1) An argument, simply put, is a disagreement of views. That is precisely what I presented in my original post. If you think that the use of biblical passages makes your post any more of an argument than mine, you are mistaken. In reference to those passages, I have never seen a more perfect example of someone “putting words” into another’s mouth. Luke 3:14…John the Baptist not telling a soldier to quit the army is hardly a sanctioning of state-sponsored killing. Mt 8:5-13…This passage is about faith and the fact that the Centurion possessed more of it than most Jews of his day. Once again, this is hardly a sanctioning of the Roman army’s notorious brutality against its enemies or of any other state-sanctioned genocide. Romans 13:3-4…To this I can counter with Deuteronomy 32:35, Psalm 94:1, Proverbs 20:22, 1 Thessalonians 4:6, Hebrews 10:30 and of course Romans 12:17. All of these passages, once again in no uncertain terms, state that God ALONE is Judge, Jury, and Executioner. You cited John 19:11…This was truly confusing to me. This passage is about Jesus being handed over to Pilate and how Pilate was a simply a pawn with no real power over Jesus. Once again, how exactly is this a justification for murder or “killing.” By the way, your distinction between the two words is simply semantics.
2) This scenario is silly. If someone broke into my home, I would of course protect myself and my family. This action would include calling 911. However, it does not include me killing this thief. On the contrary, if he asked for my “tunic” I would hand him my “cloak” as well.” Calling 911 is not a tacit approval for for the death penalty.
3) Yes. I give greater weight to the Gospels. These our hand written reports of Jesus direct words and actions. Some Christians seem to think Paul is equal to Christ. He is not. Yes, Mt 5:38-42 teaches us about “turning to the other cheek” however we must also go on to read Mt. 43-48. Jesus Christ, once again in no uncertain terms, in terms that are not open to the “interpretative grid of other people,” and yes are meant to be taken literally, tells us to “LOVE OUR ENEMIES.” This is the heart of Christianity. This is what differentiates us from other faiths on the planet throughout all of history. To kill a murderer, even if it is sanctioned by the State, is usurping God’s place as judge AND it is showing no mercy to that person. Is God evil because he has killed? Of course not…what God gives, God can take away. We do not give human life therefore we are in no position to take it away. Brent, your use of bumper stickers to represent the Christian pacifistic worldview was insulting and that is the only thing you should be apologizing for. We have a very developed argument rooted in the actions and word of Jesus Christ, not in the teachings of John the Baptist, Paul, or even C.S. Lewis.
Gavin, thank you for understanding and more importantly thank you for listening.
Daniel
Earthly political goals? A Christian nation? You must have posted onto the wrong blog, Grant. Where did that come from??
I don’t know. I never know what I’m talking about. That never stops me from throwing in my two cents, though. GO NUGGETS! 🙂
Dan,
I think this will be my last response in this particular exchange.
I don’t know quite how to respond to someone who says, as you do in your first point above, that the distinction between “murder†and “killing†is a matter of semantics. Neither the biblical languages (Hebrew and Greek) nor our own (English) view these two words as mere synonyms. In fact, our entire legal system recognizes this distinction (i.e., this is why a police officer is not tried for murder each time he uses lethal force to stop a homicidal maniac). Again, I just don’t know how to reply other than to say you’re disagreeing with all languages and cultures in failing to recognize a murder/killing distinction.
Your connection between Jesus’ statement to individuals to “turn the other cheek†and the role of the state doesn’t address my initial argument. Am I to assume that Jesus’ original audience (private people in a disarmed nation) would have supposed that Jesus was referring to war rather than individual retribution? As Lewis puts it in “The Weight of Glory,†“The friction of daily life among villagers were more likely to be in their minds.â€
Finally, you state that your modern pacifist interpretation of Jesus is the only plain reading of his words and actions. In fact, you call this interpretation of yours “the heart of Christianity†and “what differentiates us [Christians] from other faiths on the planet throughout all of historyâ€. Never mind that whether you go to Anglicans (Church of England), Presbyterians (Protestant Reformed), the Catholic Church (see St. Aquinas), or as far back as the Church Fathers or Patristics (see St. Augustine), you’ll see a recognition of the state’s right to ‘the sword’ and a Christian’s right to even serve in war. Further, to accept your pacifism, I also have to believe (as you seem to) that the true meaning of Christ’s words were, as Lewis puts it, “concealed from those who lived in the same time and spoke the same language, and whom [Jesus] Himself chose to be His messengers to the world, as well as from all their successors, has at last been discovered in our own time.†On the other hand, maybe 20th century Christian pacifism finally got it right (I’m just not that overconfident to claim such a thing).
Dan, it often seems easier to have these more involved discussions in person—maybe we can do so some day with Greg and Grant as our mediators (ha, ha)!
Best,
Brent
I would like to let you know that both Grant and I do not appreciate the laughter at our mediating…good day Sir!
Brent,
Yes, this will be my last post as well.
To take a life is to take a life whether you call it murder or killing. If we make a distinction, so be it. I believe that Christ sanctions neither.
We have in effect two arguments here. The first is the death penalty and the second is the notion of a “just” war.
Jesus Christ and the early church spoke on these matters and their words are evidently against both ideas.
For the death penalty please read: John 8:1-11
For the just war argument, please enjoy the following:
“Christ, in disarming Peter, disarmed every soldier.-Tertullian
“If you enroll as one of God’s people, heaven is your country and God your lawgiver.”-St. Clement of Alexandria
“Murder, considered a crime when people commit it singly, is transformed into a virtue when they do it en masse.”-St. Cyprian
“Christians, instead of arming themselves with swords, extend their hands in prayer.”-St. Athanasius
“I am a soldier of Christ and it is not permissible for me to fight.”-St. Martin of Tours
“Now we who once murdered one another not only refrain from all hatred of enemies, we meet death cheerfully for confessing to Christ.”-Justin
“Say to those that hate and curse you, You are my brothers!”-Theophilus of Antioch
“The divine banner and the human banner do not go together, nor the standard of Christ and the standard of the Devil. Only without the sword can the Christian wage war: the Lord has abolished the sword.”-Tertullian
You get the idea. I shudder to call these men “Fathers of the Church.” There is only one “Father” of the Church and that is Christ. I will say that they were the early Church. Now you mentioned different Christian churches and religions earlier, and stated that they all support the idea of a just war. Just because the majority of today’s “Christians” support it does not make it right. I believe that Mark Twain once said that “Whenever you are on the side of the majority, it is time to pause and reflect.” That is what we have done. It is not that the 20th century, pacifistic Christian “got it right,” it was the early Church that got it right. C.S. Lewis is correct to say that the true meaning of Christ’s words was “concealed.” It was concealed by other Church leaders that thought man not killing man was simply impractical. Now violence existed during the days of the early Church as it does now. The difference between those that chose violence and those that didn’t then, is the same difference that exists today. The difference is simple: some choose to follow Christ and some to choose to follow the people that came after Christ.