The question of whether Jesus was a pacifist is a complex one that has been debated by scholars and theologians for centuries. At first glance, some of Jesus’ teachings in the Gospels seem to promote nonviolence and pacifism. However, other passages show Jesus using more militant language and not rejecting the use of force outright. Overall, the evidence suggests that while Jesus preached love, forgiveness and turning the other cheek, he was not an absolute pacifist in the modern sense of categorically rejecting all forms of violence.
Jesus’ teachings on nonviolence
There are several passages in the Gospels that point to Jesus advocating nonviolence and pacifism. In the Sermon on the Mount, Jesus tells his followers:
“You have heard that it was said, ‘An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth.’ But I say to you, Do not resist the one who is evil. But if anyone slaps you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also.” (Matthew 5:38-39 ESV)
This teaching to turn the other cheek and not retaliate has been taken by many as a promotion of pacifism. In the same sermon, Jesus goes further by saying:
“You have heard that it was said, ‘You shall love your neighbor and hate your enemy.’ But I say to you, Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you.” (Matthew 5:43-44 ESV)
To love and pray for one’s enemies instead of hating them also resonates with pacifist thought. Jesus teaches similar pacifist attitudes in other passages, such as:
“Put your sword back into its place. For all who take the sword will perish by the sword.” (Matthew 26:52 ESV)
Here Jesus rejects violent retaliation and affirms the counterproductive nature of violence.
Violent language used by Jesus
However, the Gospels also contain passages where Jesus uses more violent language and accepts the use of force. For instance, in Matthew 10:34 ESV, Jesus says:
“Do not think that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I have not come to bring peace, but a sword.”
He goes on to describe how his message will divide families and bring strife. This language of “bringing a sword” sounds very different than the pacifist teachings in the Sermon on the Mount. In a parable, Jesus likens God’s judgment to a king who uses military force against rebellious subjects (Luke 19:27 ESV). While this is a metaphor, it does not reject the morality of using force.
Jesus and the money changers
One of the most concrete acts of Jesus in the Gospels is driving the money changers out of the temple courts:
And Jesus entered the temple and drove out all who sold and bought in the temple, and he overturned the tables of the money-changers and the seats of those who sold pigeons. (Matthew 21:12 ESV)
While this act was nonlethal, Jesus uses physical force and aggression against those conducting business in the temple. This shows he was willing to go beyond just verbal teachings and use action, even if not deadly action, to back up his message.
Jesus affirms ethical use of force
Overall, while Jesus emphasizes love, forgiveness and kindness in his teachings, he does not reject the ethical use of force unconditionally. His acceptance of force seems to be based on motives and on enacting justice, rather than complete pacifism. For example, when being arrested, Jesus stops a disciples from fighting back saying:
“Do you think that I cannot appeal to my Father, and he will at once send me more than twelve legions of angels? But how then should the Scriptures be fulfilled, that it must be so?” (Matthew 26:53-54 ESV)
Here Jesus affirms God’s angels could righteously use force to protect him. But it would interfere with God’s higher plans, soJesus does not advocate for it at this time. Still, this indicates Jesus sees the value in using force for godly motives when appropriate.
How Jesus’ followers interpreted his teachings
The early Christian church after Jesus seemed to understand his teachings as promoting nonviolence, but not outright pacifism. Theologian Iain McKinnon notes:
There is a consistent opposition to the use of violence and war within mainstream Christian thought in the first four centuries. However, its basis lies more in pragmatic considerations and example rather than formal prohibitions. (McKinnon, Iain. “Pacifism” in Gerald G. O’Collins & Edward G. Farrugia, eds., “A Concise Dictionary of Theology.” 3rd edition revised. Mahwah, NJ: Paulist Press, 2013, p. 218)
So while early Christians avoided violence, they saw this as an implication of Jesus’ message rather than a dogmatic principle never to be broken. Theologian Lisa Sowle Cahill notes that Augustine later laid the foundations for “just war” theory, arguing that war could be ethical when waged for a just cause and prosecuted through just means. Cahill writes:
For Augustine, ‘just war’ is service to God and neighbor, using force to uphold or restore peace when needed. (Cahill, Lisa Sowle. “Love Your Enemies: Discipleship, Pacifism, and Just War Theory”. Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1994, p. 89)
So the Christian church moved towards a qualified anti-violence position, but not absolute pacifism. The military service of early Christian soldiers was seen as consistent with the faith when needed to uphold justice.
Jesus’ teachings in historical context
Some of the apparent contradictions between Jesus’ peaceful teachings and his acceptance of using force can be resolved by considering the historical context. New Testament scholar Amy-Jill Levine comments:
Taking the words of Jesus out of context, simply appropriating them as one sees fit, harms both the teachings of Jesus and those who follow him. Jesus’ teachings on nonviolence have to be balanced against the recognition that he lived in a violent world dominated by Rome. (Levine, Amy-Jill “Was Jesus a Pacifist?” The Teaching Company “Great Figures of the New Testament” lecture series, 2022)
First century Judea was under military occupation by the Roman Empire. Radical pacifism may not have been practical or even the most ethical approach given this oppressive context. Working for justice sometimes required force. So while Jesus emphasized nonviolence whenever possible, he recognized room for just wars if needed.
The bigger picture in Jesus’ teachings
Stepping back, the core of Jesus’ ministry was love – love for God and love for neighbor. British theologian N.T. Wright notes:
Jesus’ teachings consistently direct his followers towards love – towards the Creator whose image is found in all human beings. This theme of love is central to the message of Jesus. (Wright, N.T. “Simply Jesus: A New Vision of Who He Was, What He Did, and Why He Matters.” New York: HarperOne, 2011, p. 193)
While Jesus accepted use of force in extreme cases, it was not central to his worldview. Nonviolence and peacemaking were closer to the heart of his teachings. He chose the path of the cross rather than armed rebellion against Rome. British scholar James chester wrote:
The way of Christ is the way of the cross and sacrificial service, not violent uprising. Jesus’ life modeled giving up power, position, and prestige for the sake of others. (Chester, Tim. “A Meal with Jesus: Discovering Grace, Community, and Mission around the Table”. Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 2011, p. 93)
Jesus was revolutionary primarily in teaching and modeling radical love, grace, forgiveness, and service across divides of class, religion, ethnicity, and gender.
Differing perspectives among Christians
Given these complexities, Christians have come to different conclusions on how to apply Jesus’ teachings concerning violence. The largest group sees room for “just war” or using force as a last resort to uphold justice and prevent greater evils. A smaller group advocates nonviolence while stopping short of complete pacifism. A pacifist minority rejects the use of lethal force entirely based on Jesus’ ethics. Scholar Preston Sprinkle summarizes the diversity of views:
One thing is clear: Jesus articulated a vision of peacemaking yet also affirmed a place for justice and judgment for resisting evil. This has led the church to varying but overlapping positions—from just war to Christian pacifism to active nonviolence. (Sprinkle, Preston “Fight: A Christian Case for Nonviolence”. Colorado Springs: David C. Cook, 2013, p. 43-44)
This variety of interpretations shows that faithful Christians can understand the life of Jesus in different ways when it comes to violence and pacifism. There is room for debate within biblical parameters.
Conclusions
In summary, the evidence suggests Jesus was not an absolute pacifist according to the modern definition. While his ethic prioritized peacemaking, nonviolence and enemy love, it did not reject the use of force unconditionally in all circumstances. Jesus’ teachings and example provide a bias towards nonviolence whenever possible. But justice and circumstance could sometimes necessitate force as a last resort. Christians derive principles from Jesus to restrain violence, while also seeing justification for force if used ethically for just causes.
The Gospels present a complex Jesus who defies easy political labels. Rather than focusing on isolated verses to make ideological points, Christians are called to follow the spirit of Jesus’ teachings. His ministry embodied profound enemy love, yet also overturned injustice. He pronounced both blessing and woe. Christians across the spectrum of views on war and peace can find guidance from Jesus. But the debate between just war theory and pacifism is likely to continue as followers grapple with applying Jesus’ radical message to the realities of a fallen world.