Was Jesus a pacifist?

[Drew]

Here, I suggest is the fundamental problem with all attempts to explain Luke 22 in terms of Jesus telling us we can use swords to defend ourselves - they invariably strikethrough the bit about prophecy fulfillment, the proponents of such arguments taking it upon themselves to do this:

And He said to them, “When I sent you out without money belt and bag and sandals, you did not lack anything, did you?” They said, “No, nothing.” 36 And He said to them, “But now, whoever has a money belt is to take it along, likewise also a bag, and whoever has no sword is to sell his coat and buy one. 37 For I tell you that this which is written must be fulfilled in Me, ‘And He was numbered with transgressors’; for that which refers to Me has its fulfillment.” 38 They said, “Lord, look, here are two swords.” And He said to them, “It is enough.”

Do you see the problem?

When we take it upon ourselves to effectively replace Jesus' explanation for the swords with our own, how are we not committing an egregious violation of respect for scriptural authority?

 

[Drew]

He that hath not, i.e., purse or wallet, let him sell his cloke (outer garment), necessary as that is, and buy a sword, which is now more indispensable than clothing. One who had not a sword, might still have a purse, and thus not be obliged to sell his garment; a point overlooked by the rendering of the E. V. This is not to be taken literally, nor yet allegorically, as though the purse, wallet, and sword had each a spiritual signification; but the whole is a figurative setting forth of the fact that henceforth self-defence would be their chief necessity, in view of the outward perils which would come upon them. This opposes the non-resistant theory of the Quakers, and also the view, that force can be used aggressively in the cause of Christ; self-defence alone is in question.

Notice, again, that this exegete has entirely ignored the reason Jesus actually gives for the swords: so that a prophecy about Jesus being seen as a transgressor will be fulfilled!

How can we possibly let such a blatant oversight pass un-noticed?

The argument above makes sense - indeed Jesus's followers would face perils for which carrying a sword makes sense.

To us, that is.

But we are not Jesus, and Jesus tells us why the swords are to be procured - so that a certain prophecy about Him being seen as a transgressor would be fulfilled. And surely you have to concede that if all your followers are roaming about with swords, it would be easy to say that Jesus was the leader of a gang of dangerous "transgressors", out to disrupt peace and good order.

Here is where most people get tripped up - other than who intentionally misrepresent this passage - they fail to grasp that just because it makes sense to have a sword for self-defence does not automatically mean this is the reason why Jesus gave the instruction.

 

[godsquadgeek]

Where, in this long tale, is an explanation as to why the swords fulfilled the prophecy that Jesus be numbered among transgressors?

Nowhere.

This oversight is fatal to the argument. Jesus clearly means to tell us that he wanted his followers to appear to be a band of armed hooligans thus, of course, fulfilling the prophecy!

Any explanation for Luke 22 must deal with the "numbered with transgressors" prophecy to be remotely taken seriously.

sorry to say but numbered with transgressors can be filled a million ways, none of which involve armed conflict. Numbered with the transgressors, if I look at my commentaries and pastor resources most likely relates to the fact he was crucified between thieves.

 

[godsquadgeek]

The thing about the centurion is a common argument but it is not very convincing. The argument appears to be that since Jesus did not rebuke the centurion for participating in a system of armed force, that Jesus is OK with it. Well, if Jesus took the time to criticize every person he met for their various sins, he would never get anything else done.

actually it's a very convincing argument. If he didn't criticize the centurion and in fact healed his servant and set him up as a man of faith (for believing in Jesus power "say the words and he will be healed, dont' visit him"), then I would believe as you do, however the Bible simply doesn't allow your interpretation of this.

 

[godsquadgeek]

Notice, again, that this exegete has entirely ignored the reason Jesus actually gives for the swords: so that a prophecy about Jesus being seen as a transgressor will be fulfilled!

How can we possibly let such a blatant oversight pass un-noticed?

The argument above makes sense - indeed Jesus's followers would face perils for which carrying a sword makes sense.

To us, that is.

But we are not Jesus, and Jesus tells us why the swords are to be procured - so that a certain prophecy about Him being seen as a transgressor would be fulfilled. And surely you have to concede that if all your followers are roaming about with swords, it would be easy to say that Jesus was the leader of a gang of dangerous "transgressors", out to disrupt peace and good order.

Here is where most people get tripped up - other than who intentionally misrepresent this passage - they fail to grasp that just because it makes sense to have a sword for self-defence does not automatically mean this is the reason why Jesus gave the instruction.

can you prove your assumption? I don't think so. Can you prove that your prophecy is the "reason Jesus actually gives for the swords"

I already stated that I have questions why Jesus would (Luke 7) heal a centurioun's servant and then set him up as a pillar of faith, if his every day job was a sin?

 

[Drew]

sorry to say but numbered with transgressors can be filled a million ways, none of which involve armed conflict.

Fact: Jesus says that the swords fulfill a prophecy that He will be numbered among transgressors. And it is obvious that having armed followers would make Jesus appear to be a trouble-making outlaw.

That is, a transgressor.

Where, in any of the material you have posted is an actual explanation offered as to why Jesus would say that the purpose of the swords was to fulfill a particular prophecy - whose fulfillment can be easily understood if Jesus's followers take up swords - when, in fact (on your view), the purpose was self-defense.

I am taking Jesus at His word. You, on the other hand, are substituting your own explanation - self defence - for the explanation Jesus actually offers.

 

[godsquadgeek]

Fact: Jesus says that the swords fulfill a prophecy that He will be numbered among transgressors. And it is obvious that having armed followers would make Jesus appear to be a trouble-making outlaw.

That is, a transgressor.

Where, in any of the material you have posted is an actual explanation offered as to why Jesus would say that the purpose of the swords was to fulfill a particular prophecy - whose fulfillment can be easily understood if Jesus's followers take up swords - when, in fact (on your view), the purpose was self-defense.

I am taking Jesus at His word. You, on the other hand, are substituting your own explanation - self defence - for the explanation Jesus actually offers.

If your version is true that bearing the sword was a sin, then Jesus commanded them to sin here, in essence himself sinning. This would nulify the prophecy of the blameless lamb being slaughtered (1 peter 1:19). Your argument commits the fallacy of self defeating argumentation.

Self-Defeating Argumentation:

A mechanics apprentice in training (possibly dyslexic) was unbolting a piece of equipment at a tomato cannery in California.

This guy would loosen the bolt with his right hand. His arm would get tired so He’d switch arms. But Instead of loosening it he would tighten it again because he switched arms and forgot which way he was turning the bolt. His arm would get tired so He’d switch arms again. He would start loosening again. And He did this several times without getting anywhere, before the Mechanic lead pointed it out. A personal friend worked their and told me about that story, still laughs about it. But it’s a perfect example of circular reasoning and a decent example self-defeating actions:

The faster he worked the faster he undid what he had done already. The harder he worked, the harder he undid his work. Because in essence, he was fighting himself.

the right explaination:

That prophecy is still a fulfillment of the thieves, not the swords. here is why. the context of the passage is that Jesus would no longer be with them. And part of that reason why He would not be there any longer (which is what they wanted to know), is that prophecy must be fulfilled. The prophecy here that needed fulfillment was that he would be numbered with the transgressors.

 

[godsquadgeek]

Would you beat your children for correction ?

I don't understand what this is referring to? Hell? or suffering? What?

The historical record indicates that Christians didn't use violence in any form until some 300 years after Christ.

Hi Peter, Jesus is not a pacifist in the sense that war is unjustified, but God is "JUST" and demands justice upon sinful and disobedient men, So much so that sin (transgression of God's commands, "without Christ", is death). All men would perish if it were not for His Mercy and Grace (Gen. 6:5-8)....and God is not done with his wrath to those who have corrupted His perfect creation, bringing decay, death and heartache.....For what is "salvation", but being saved from the wrath of God to an eternal and glorious state. (Rom. 5:8-10; Rom. 1:18; Rom. 3:25; Eph. 2:3; 1 Thes. 1:10; Rom. 5:1) God has an army, and is Just!
In His Eternal Mercy and Grace,
Douglas Summers

to believe luke 22:36, Jesus is saying that he must be numbered with the transgressors, and thus perform some transgression (namely that he would order them to protect themselves with the sword, in the case of traveling and robbers in between cities), shows Jesus to be a sinner. And nullifies numerous scripture where Jesus was not a sinner or transgressor even.

 

[Free]

to believe luke 22:36, Jesus is saying that he must be numbered with the transgressors, and thus perform some transgression (namely that he would order them to protect themselves with the sword, in the case of traveling and robbers in between cities), shows Jesus to be a sinner. And nullifies numerous scripture where Jesus was not a sinner or transgressor even.

Someone can be "numbered with the transgressors" and yet not be a transgressor. The point is that Jesus was crucified between two thieves, crucified as transgressors were. The argument being presented to you is that Jesus was made to appear to be a transgressor although he was not.

 

[godsquadgeek]

Someone can be "numbered with the transgressors" and yet not be a transgressor. The point is that Jesus was crucified between two thieves, crucified as transgressors were. The argument being presented to you is that Jesus was made to appear to be a transgressor although he was not.

but bearing the sword is a sin is it not? Didn't he command them to sell their coats and buy swords? I rest my case. your view is that jesus was a pacifist and must entertain that bearing the sword in all cases is sin. Then why would Jesus command them to sin? And how is this not a fulfillment of being numbered with the transgressors? if that was the case that bearing the sword is sin in any situation?

 

[Free]

but bearing the sword is a sin is it not? Didn't he command them to sell their coats and buy swords? I rest my case.

Is "bearing the sword" a sin?

your view is that jesus was a pacifist and must entertain that bearing the sword in all cases is sin. Then why would Jesus command them to sin?

Your conclusion doesn't follow.

 

[godsquadgeek]

Is "bearing the sword" a sin?


Your conclusion doesn't follow.

It is my opinion that many believe that since Jesus came to bring peace and that He said to love your enemy not cut them with a sword, that bearing the sword would be a sin under all situations?

Am I wrong in assuming you don't believe that?

Please let me know if I am wrong here.

 

[Free]

It is my opinion that many believe that since Jesus came to bring peace and that He said to love your enemy not cut them with a sword, that bearing the sword would be a sin under all situations?

Am I wrong in assuming you don't believe that?

Please let me know if I am wrong here.

That all depends on what you mean by "bearing the sword." I see no reason to believe that merely having a sword was a sin and I don't think that anyone's argument here was based on that either.

I think the whole argument being made here is that just by a group of people having swords, namely, Jesus and his followers, it would make them out to appear to be rebels against the state and Jewish authorities, to appear as transgressors. This could be further supported by Peter's cutting off the ear of a servant. Jesus could have known what Peter would do and it would make it look like they truly were rebels. Yet, Jesus's words show that that is not what he wants: "No more of this!" (ESV). He wanted them to appear as rebels, as transgressors, to fulfil the prophecy, not actually be rebels.

 

[godsquadgeek]

That all depends on what you mean by "bearing the sword." I see no reason to believe that merely having a sword was a sin and I don't think that anyone's argument here was based on that either.

I think the whole argument being made here is that just by a group of people having swords, namely, Jesus and his followers, it would make them out to appear to be rebels against the state and Jewish authorities, to appear as transgressors. This could be further supported by Peter's cutting off the ear of a servant. Jesus could have known what Peter would do and it would make it look like they truly were rebels. Yet, Jesus's words show that that is not what he wants: "No more of this!" (ESV). He wanted them to appear as rebels, as transgressors, to fulfil the prophecy, not actually be rebels.

so your argument is that Jesus was being deceptive? Or maybe possibly lying? for one that preaches that white lies are a sin I hardly think He would be deceptive. Furthermore, to tell the truth is not a suggestion, it is a command (Psalm 15:2; Zechariah 8:16; Ephesians 4:25).

 

[Jim Parker]

It is my opinion that many believe that since Jesus came to bring peace......

Holding that belief would be contrary to Jesus very clear statement.

Mat 10:34-36 (NKJV) Do not think that I came to bring peace on earth. I did not come to bring peace but a sword. For I have come to "set a man against his father, a daughter against her mother, and a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law", and "a man’s enemies will be those of his own household." (Micah 7:6)

Luk 12:51-53 (NKJV) Do you suppose that I came to give peace on earth? I tell you, not at all, but rather division. For from now on five in one house will be divided: three against two, and two against three. Father will be divided against son and son against father, mother against daughter and daughter against mother, mother-in-law against her daughter-in-law and daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law.

The peace which Christ brought was the reconciliation of man to God. But the enmity between people was increased by establishing the Kingdom of God (the Church) in the midst of Satan's sin-conquered world.

my 2 kopecks

iakov the fool

 

[SytheF]

Was Jesus a pacifist?I think anyone who has read the Bible front to back and the Old Testament know that Jesus could never be called a pacifist.

 

[SytheF]

so your argument is that Jesus was being deceptive? Or maybe possibly lying? for one that preaches that white lies are a sin I hardly think He would be deceptive. Furthermore, to tell the truth is not a suggestion, it is a command (Psalm 15:2; Zechariah 8:16; Ephesians 4:25).

Not a one who has read the Old Testament could ever construe Jesus as a pacifist in the new.
Does Revelation sound like the prophecy afforded a pacifist that's inspiring visions to John the Revelator?
Remember when Jesus took a whip into the courtyard outside the temple and went after the money changers there? After having fashioned that whip with his own hands.
Not the act of a pacifist. Jesus healed the blind with spit and dirt made into mud. Had he wanted to clear the temple of the Jews there who were changing monies so fellow Jews could buy sacrificial animals using Roman coin, he could have spoken words and cleared them out. Instead, he took a whip he'd fashioned and went after them.
I've met Christians who attempt to say of that, yes, but there's no indication he actually hit someone with the whip!
That makes sense doesn't it? God created a whip with his own hands just for show. Because after that thing in Egypt, and with the big water deal in the OT, he's suddenly turned the other cheek. He no whip people now. He drowned them, burned them, killed them in all manner of ways before..... but that was before he was, you know, Jesus!
The Bible says it and people believe it until they decide they don't like that it says Jesus got mad.

 

[godsquadgeek]

Holding that belief would be contrary to Jesus very clear statement.

Mat 10:34-36 (NKJV) Do not think that I came to bring peace on earth. I did not come to bring peace but a sword. For I have come to "set a man against his father, a daughter against her mother, and a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law", and "a man’s enemies will be those of his own household." (Micah 7:6)

Luk 12:51-53 (NKJV) Do you suppose that I came to give peace on earth? I tell you, not at all, but rather division. For from now on five in one house will be divided: three against two, and two against three. Father will be divided against son and son against father, mother against daughter and daughter against mother, mother-in-law against her daughter-in-law and daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law.

The peace which Christ brought was the reconciliation of man to God. But the enmity between people was increased by establishing the Kingdom of God (the Church) in the midst of Satan's sin-conquered world.

my 2 kopecks

iakov the fool

I agree, I said many others believe Christ was pacifist.

 

[godsquadgeek]

Not a one who has read the Old Testament could ever construe Jesus as a pacifist in the new.
Does Revelation sound like the prophecy afforded a pacifist that's inspiring visions to John the Revelator?
Remember when Jesus took a whip into the courtyard outside the temple and went after the money changers there? After having fashioned that whip with his own hands.
Not the act of a pacifist. Jesus healed the blind with spit and dirt made into mud. Had he wanted to clear the temple of the Jews there who were changing monies so fellow Jews could buy sacrificial animals using Roman coin, he could have spoken words and cleared them out. Instead, he took a whip he'd fashioned and went after them.
I've met Christians who attempt to say of that, yes, but there's no indication he actually hit someone with the whip!
That makes sense doesn't it? God created a whip with his own hands just for show. Because after that thing in Egypt, and with the big water deal in the OT, he's suddenly turned the other cheek. He no whip people now. He drowned them, burned them, killed them in all manner of ways before..... but that was before he was, you know, Jesus!
The Bible says it and people believe it until they decide they don't like that it says Jesus got mad.

Jesus did drive the money changers out, but i would not go on to say that Jesus is wrathful normally speaking. Those were false religious leaders that Got Him that mad. But Jesus did understand self defense and He commanded them after He left to provide their own protection. Luke 22:36

 

[SytheF]

Jesus did drive the money changers out, but i would not go on to say that Jesus is wrathful normally speaking. Those were false religious leaders that Got Him that mad. But Jesus did understand self defense and He commanded them after He left to provide their own protection. Luke 22:36

True. There are plenty of scriptures supporting our right to self defense. We are saved eternally but God doesn't say we're to be careless and hurry to meet him at the hands of the homicidal.
As to the wrathful part, there are also many scriptures that report of God's wrath. Jesus was mad when he confronted the leaders in the temple and called them vipers and of Satan. He wasn't full of joy when he chased after the money changers with a whip that would not have been necessary had he not thought it so and fashioned it himself.
The same Jesus that later talked as you mention about buying a sword. And who's own Disciple had a sword on his person when Jesus was arrested.
With the full knowledge of the all knowing God whom he served.

The argument that Jesus was a pacifist is, by scripture itself, indefensible.