Faith Defenders - Was Jesus a Pacifist?  

Was Jesus a Pacifist?

by Robert Morey

 Jesus was God incarnate, God in human flesh.
God is not a pacifist. Jesus the Son of Man was a pacifist on this earth, and commanded His followers to be pacifists. After He ascended to the Throne of David at the right hand of the Father, Jesus the Divine non-pacifist destroyed those who murdered Him (Revelation 19:11-16):

11 Now I saw heaven opened, and behold, a white horse. And He who sat on him was called Faithful and True, and in righteousness He judges and makes war. 12 His eyes were like a flame of fire, and on His head were many crowns. He had a name written that no one knew except Himself. 13 He was clothed with a robe dipped in blood, and His name is called The Word of God. 14 And the armies in heaven, clothed in fine linen, white and clean, followed Him on white horses. 15 Now out of His mouth goes a sharp sword, that with it He should strike the nations. And He Himself will rule them with a rod of iron. He Himself treads the winepress of the fierceness and wrath of Almighty God. 16 And He has on His robe and on His thigh a name written:

KING OF KINGS AND
LORD OF LORDS.

This passage gives neither Barack Obama nor Donald Trump the authority to judge nations and make war.
It would be difficult to overstate the importance of the Gospels. In the pages of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John we find the matchless words and life of the Lord Jesus. No literature, ancient or modern, can ever excel the beauty and depth of the words of Jesus, who spoke as no other man has ever spoken. The Gospels will be forever loved and enjoyed by God’s people. In their pages we see Jesus in all the dignity of His perfect humanity and the glory of His work of salvation.  
As we approach the Gospel material, we must emphasize the necessity of not reading into the Bible ideas and issues which are uniquely related to the twentieth century. Instead, the only valid hermeneutical assumption we can make is that Jesus and the apostles will deal primarily with the issues and questions of their first-century audience. We should not expect them to deal with such things as nuclear weapons because such things did not exist in their day.  
This means we cannot claim direct Gospel support for issues which could not have been of any interest in the first century, because they did not yet exist. We can easily fall into the trap of getting more out of the Bible than what is really there.  
An honest reading of the Gospels reveals that neither Jesus nor His apostles ever deal directly with such modern abstract issues as the morality of war, nuclear weapons, unilateral disarmament, foreign and domestic policy, industrial pollution or urban blight. Nowhere do they directly answer such questions as: I find it deeply disturbing that someone can read the New Testament and not conclude that a weapon of mass destruction -- which indiscriminately kills thousands or millions of combatants and non-combatants, good folks and evil, schools, hospitals, water treatment plants, and grocery stores -- is not sinful.

What is "abstract" about this?

“What is our responsibility in times of war?”

  

“Is it proper for a nation to go to war?”

  

“Should the police carry weapons?”

  
Once this point is understood, it becomes obvious that the only way for us to arrive at answers to some of these issues and questions is to deduce by logical inference what Jesus might have said if He had been asked about such things.  
We readily admit that logical deductions can be tricky. We must be very careful not to put our words into the mouth of the Lord Jesus. All we can do is arrive at His most probable answers. We must base our research on logical inferences drawn from His sermons and the way He dealt with problems in His own day.  
Once we understand that the best we can come up with is the most probable answer drawn from inference, we must be careful to avoid arguing in a circle. Many stumble into this typical violation of logic quite sincerely, and quite blindly.  
For example, what if we approached the Gospels with the assumption that we already knew that Jesus was a pacifist before even picking up the Bible to see what He said? We would naturally give a biased interpretation of His words in such passages as the Sermon on the Mount. The word "pacifist" comes from the Latin word for "peace." Jesus is called "the Prince of Peace." He came to bring "peace on earth."  The Bible is clearly pro-peace. Why should we not have some kind of "bias" in favor of peace?
Once we had done this, we could then argue that Jesus was a pacifist on the basis of His words. Proving in our conclusion what we had already assumed in our premise, we would end up arguing in a circle.  
This equally applies to someone who uses circular reasoning to prove that Jesus was in favor of war. If the form of the argument is invalid, it is invalid no matter which position is using it.  
Since we can only infer what Jesus might have said about such things as national wars, we must accept the answer which has the most evidence. We cannot make a “leap of faith” as some do and arbitrarily assume that our position is the biblical one simply because we wish it to be so.  
The Most Probable Answer
At no point in Jesus’ ministry did He ever tell Israel or Rome that governments should disarm.

He never condemned the just use of force as taught in the Scriptures,

nor did He ever condemn the police for using force to punish criminals.

Despite the clarity of the Old Testament in its divine approval of the use of force, Jesus never once preached against a nation having an army or the state maintaining a police force.

 Jesus came to earth to be assassinated by the government and apostate Israeli collaborators. What purpose would have been served by Him spending a lot of time during His short 3-year ministry articulating a long-range plan to adopt anarcho-capitalism?

On the other hand, He made it clear that He came to put into force "the law and the prophets" (Matthew 5:17-20), and the whole Bible is an anarchist and pacifist manifesto.

At this point, speaking of "the Old testament approval" for violence "as taught in the Scriptures" is as much a presuppositional bias as pacifism. What the Old Testament says has not been established yet.
Logically, this can lead us to only one possible inference. Jesus’ silence meant that He approved of and accepted the Old Testament precedent of the valid use of force.

Whenever we study the Scriptures, a biblical and historical precedent stands until directly removed by divine revelation.

 Not a single verse of the Old Testament has yet been quoted.

 

Yes, the precedent stands, but the precedent has not yet been set forth.
The following points from the Gospels further strengthen this logical inference:  
  1. Jesus spoke with obvious approval of a king who waged a just war to punish a wicked people by putting them to death (Matt. 21:33-41). While Jesus was not discussing war per se, His use of a just-war model for this parable is possible only if Jesus accepted the Old Testament concept of the just use of force.
 Read the parable. Is it talking about a "government?" Or is it talking about a private business? If I own a vineyard and I hire workers and they steal the grapes, and then they kill my agents whom I send to get the produce, do I have the right as the owner of a vineyard to "destroy those wicked men miserably?" Doesn't the Bible say we are to leave vengeance to God? (Romans 12:14-21)

Jesus did in fact take vengeance on the Jews who killed the Son of God (verse 45), but that does not give Donald Trump the right to invade any nation, even if some citizens of that nation killed some citizens of the United States.
  1. When dealing with Roman or Jewish soldiers, Jesus never told them to leave the military or that it was morally wrong to be soldiers (Matt. 8:5-13; Luke 6:15). This lends further support to the inference that Jesus accepted the scriptural position of the valid use of force. If He were a pacifist and opposed in principle any violence by anyone, He would not have failed to rebuke those who were in the military. Jesus was not known for overlooking sin in the lives of those who sat under His teaching. He denounced sin wherever and in whomever He saw it.
 Anyone deserting the Roman army would have been put to death. John the Baptizer told soldiers not to commit any violence (Luke 3:14). Of course, that's what soldiers do.

In Matthew 8, Jesus was asked by a centurion to heal a soldier's slave. The centurion believed Jesus had authority to do so, just as the centurion had power to order soldiers to do something and expect it to be done. For example, to commit Decimatio. This was

a form of extreme military discipline used by officers in the Roman Army to punish mutinous or cowardly soldiers in exceptional cases. Marcus Crassus, during the Spartacus gladiator rebellion in 72 BC, [used this punishment] when two of his legions disobeyed his direct orders not to engage the enemy. As a result, they suffered a terrible defeat. Crassus's response to the disobedience was brutal. He assembled the two legions and pulled out every 10th man as he walked across the ranks. Each man who was pulled out was to be beaten to death by his preceding nine comrades.

The Romans were pagans of savage violence. No Christian can condone their use of violent force. What Jesus does is tell the Jews that even this unclean perverse Gentile had greater faith than the Jews did. His purpose was not to legitimize Roman authority, but to criticize Jewish faith.

Is it accurate to say that Jesus "denounced sin wherever and in whomever He saw it?" When He said "turn the other cheek," did He denounce cheek-slappers? When he said to go a second mile, did He denounce the sin of invading another country and enslaving its citizens? Surely, you would think, it was a sin for Rome to invade Israel and compel Israelites to carry the provisions of invading soldiers. But Jesus said nothing about this sin. Of course, He didn't need to. Everyone already knew this.
  1. In Matt. 24:6, 7, Jesus clearly stated that wars would remain part of human experience until the end of the age. If He were a pacifist, then this would have been a perfect opportunity to condemn all wars. Jesus did not do so in this passage. This underscores the fact that although Jesus referred to the use of force in war or self-defense on many occasions, not once did He condemn such things.
 Matthew 24 is talking about events that would culminate in 40 years at the destruction of Jerusalem. Jesus was talking about events that that generation would experience. Not the human experience for the next 100,000 years or more.
  1. Since the people of God had been involved in political and military life throughout history (Abraham, Joshua and Daniel, for example), the fact that Jesus never once told His disciples that they could no longer be involved in those spheres of life is significant.
  • Abraham was not involved in "political" life.
  • Joshua carried out a command to exterminate the nations in the Promised Land. No serious Bible scholar should advocate the extermination of any nation in 2017 based on Joshua's life.
  • Daniel was kidnapped. Many of his fellow Israelites were also taken captive by the Babylonian Empire. This is like saying that an American would be justified in joining the government of North Korea. 
  1. One searches in vain for a secular/sacred dichotomy in Jesus’ teaching. To Him all of life was sacred. His disciples were involved in every walk of life. Jesus did not condemn governmental or military careers as being “secular” or sinful.
    Once we understand that Jesus Christ is Lord of all life and all life has been sanctified by His dominion, the secular/sacred dichotomy is destroyed. There is no occupation or area in life which a child of God may not be involved in as long as it is not in violation of God’s moral law as given in Scripture.
 All of life is indeed sacred. But the Mafia is not "sacred." It has not been "sanctified." Neither has "the government." It is institutionalized murder and theft. Taking vengeance and stealing to fund these murderous acts are a violation of God’s moral law as given in Scripture.
  1. Jesus said in John 18:36 that if His church were an earthly kingdom, it would be perfectly proper for His disciples to take up weapons and fight for Him.
    While Jesus is clearly, in this passage, forbidding the church as an institution to use physical force in its discipline or defense, He clearly states here that an earthly kingdom can and should fight when necessary.
 Let's look at the passage:

John 18
33 Then Pilate entered the Praetorium again, called Jesus, and said to Him, “Are You the King of the Jews?”
34 Jesus answered him, “Are you speaking for yourself about this, or did others tell you this concerning Me?”
35 Pilate answered, “Am I a Jew? Your own nation and the chief priests have delivered You to me. What have You done?”
36 Jesus answered, “My kingdom is not of this world. If My kingdom were of this world, My servants would fight, so that I should not be delivered to the Jews; but now My kingdom is not from here.”
John 19
4 Pilate then went out again, and said to [he chief priests and officers], “Behold, I am bringing Him out to you, that you may know that I find no fault in Him.”
14 And [Pilate] said to the Jews, “Behold your King!”
15 But they cried out, “Away with Him, away with Him! Crucify Him!”
Pilate said to them, “Shall I crucify your King?”
The chief priests answered, “We have no king but Caesar!”

Notice Pilate speaking of the Jews to Jesus: "Your own nation." But Jesus said they were not part of His Nation, and if His true Kingdom were "of this world," His Kingdom would fight the false kingdom of the Jews. But His Kingdom “is not from here.” So His servants do not resist evil.

Is it proper for the Jews to have a kingdom without Jesus as their King?
Is it proper for any group of human beings to have a rival kingdom without Jesus as King?
Is it proper for any group of human beings to have a rival kingdom and take up weapons and fight any other kingdom that is at war with the Kingdom of Christ?
Is it proper for followers of King Jesus to fight all the other false kingdoms with carnal weapons (2 Corinthians 10:3-5)?

God is the only legitimate King, His Kingdom is the only legitimate kingdom.
  1. In His parables, Jesus often pictured rulers using valid force to punish wrongdoers (Matt. 18:23-35; 21:38-41; 22:13, etc.). While this is compatible with the teaching of the Old Testament on the just use of force, Jesus would never have given such parables if He were a pacifist. This logically implies that Jesus carried on the teaching of the Old Testament.
 We looked at Matthew 21 above.

Look at the parable in Matthew 18. Morey only cites vv. 23-25. Why? Why not the whole parable? Look at verse 34:

And his master was angry, and delivered him to the torturers until he should pay all that was due to him.

Is Morey seriously contending that a modern public policy should condone a creditor torturing his debtors?

Morey cites one verse from the parable in Matthew 22. Why just one verse? Why leave out verse 7:

But when the king heard about it, he was furious. And he sent out his armies, destroyed those murderers, and burned up their city.

Does Morey seriously believe that any king has the right to burn down an entire city because someone did not come to his son's wedding? The verse Morey cites says this about someone who did not have the proper attire for a wedding:

13 Then the king said to the servants, ‘Bind him hand and foot, take him away, and cast him into outer darkness; there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth.’

Suppose Morey was invited to an important White House function, but Donald Trump did not like what Morey was wearing, and bound Morey up in chains and duct tape and imprisoned him in dark place where he weeps inconsolably? One commentator says,

When a person hits his thumb with a hammer, he will commonly squeeze his eyes closed and grind his teeth together hard. The weeping and gnashing of teeth in Scripture, however, is much more dreadful....

Would Morey's wife be OK with this? Is Jesus OK with this kind of behavior by earthly kings who don't like someone's sense of fashion?

Isn't it possible that a pacifist could describe a situation which is so intensely sinful that the pacifist doesn't even have to say that it's wrong?
  1. When the Jews brought Jesus to Pilate, they claimed that Jesus was trying to overthrow the Roman government (Luke 23:1-5). While it is clear that the Jews were wrong in saying Jesus had come to start a violent revolution, it is equally clear that such an accusation could never have been used against Jesus if He had been publicly preaching pacifism.
 Here is the passage:

Then the whole multitude of them arose and led Him to Pilate. 2 And they began to accuse Him, saying, “We found this fellow perverting the nation, and forbidding to pay taxes to Caesar, saying that He Himself is Christ, a King.”
3 Then Pilate asked Him, saying, “Are You the King of the Jews?”
He answered him and said, “It is as you say.”
4 So Pilate said to the chief priests and the crowd, “I find no fault in this Man.”
5 But they were the more fierce, saying, “He stirs up the people, teaching throughout all Judea, beginning from Galilee to this place.”

Jesus said "render taxes unto Caesar," and He is accused by false witnesses of "perverting the nation, and forbidding to pay taxes to Caesar." Morey says "it is clear that the Jews were wrong in saying Jesus had come to start a violent revolution." If Jesus said "I am a pacifist," would false witnesses be found who would say "Jesus said He is not a pacifist?" Jesus said that if Caesar demands that you carry a soldier's provisions for one mile, you go with him two. How can an accusation of violent revolution be made against Jesus? But it was. And it was false. And no true inference can logically be deduced from perjury.
  1. At the beginning and the end of His ministry, Jesus used just force to cleanse the temple (Matt. 21:12; John 2:15). His whip of cords and the Greek words used to describe His driving out the money-changers (drove, poured out, overthrew) cannot be legitimately interpreted to mean anything else than a forcible ejection of the money-changers. The only logical inference possible is that Jesus condoned the just use of force.
    When the Apostle John described this episode in Jesus’ life, he recorded that the disciples appealed to an Old Testament passage as a justification of Christ’s use of force (John 2:17). This demonstrates beyond all doubt that the disciples were not pacifists.
 Jesus owned the temple by right of inheritance from His Father.

16 And He said to those who sold doves, “Take these things away! Do not make My Father’s house a house of merchandise!” 17 Then His disciples remembered that it was written, “Zeal for Your house has eaten Me up.” (Psalm 69:9)

If someone invades my house, do I, as a pacifist, have the right to crack a whip as I forcefully demand that the intruder leave my house?  Did Jesus leave anyone bloodied by the whip?

Imagine a Pastor of a church who discovers that a member has set up a table in the Narthex and is selling "Christian jewelry." Is Morey saying that the Pastor has the right to use a whip on the church member?

Does Jesus cleansing His own temple (which in 40 year He will completely burn to the ground) justify George Bush making hundreds of thousands of Christians in Iraq homeless, crippled, or dead?

There are "legitimate interpretations" of this passage which uphold pacifism, contrary to Morey's dogmatic claim:

I might not agree with every detail of these interpretations, but they are certainly "legitimate."
  1. Throughout His ministry, Jesus spoke of His using force on the Day of Judgment to punish rebellious sinners (Matt. 25:41, 46). If the sinless Son of God is going to use force to destroy His enemies, then it is not possible to view the use of force as being intrinsically wrong or immoral. We must therefore conclude that force is right in some situations.
 Nobody argues that God does not have the right to use force; only that human beings do not.
  1. When Jesus’ enemies tried to capture Him, He demonstrated that no one could take His life away from Him (John 10:17, 18). Jesus exercised divine force and knocked down His attackers (John 18:1-6). Since the Son of God himself exercised force in self-defense, then the use of force in self-defense should be viewed as good.
 Let's look at the passage:

John 10
17 “Therefore My Father loves Me, because I lay down My life that I may take it again. 18 No one takes it from Me, but I lay it down of Myself. I have power to lay it down, and I have power to take it again. This command I have received from My Father.”

This does not justify killing anyone in 2017

John 18
When Jesus had spoken these words, He went out with His disciples over the Brook Kidron, where there was a garden, which He and His disciples entered. 2 And Judas, who betrayed Him, also knew the place; for Jesus often met there with His disciples. 3 Then Judas, having received a detachment of troops, and officers from the chief priests and Pharisees, came there with lanterns, torches, and weapons. 4 Jesus therefore, knowing all things that would come upon Him, went forward and said to them, “Whom are you seeking?”
5 They answered Him, “Jesus of Nazareth.”
Jesus said to them, “I am He.” And Judas, who betrayed Him, also stood with them. 6 Now when He said to them, “I am He,” they drew back and fell to the ground.

Jesus did not punch their lights out with His fists. He spoke a word. We too can speak the Word of God to our attackers in 2017. We cannot kill them.
  1. Jesus told His disciples to buy weapons to arm themselves (Luke 22:36-38). While this is hardly consistent with a pacifist picture of Jesus, it does strengthen the inference that Jesus approved of the Old Testament principle of the use of weapons in self-defense. We cannot imagine a pacifist arming his disciples with weapons.
 Jesus did not tell His disciples to buy weapons. There is no evidence they ever did. There is no evidence anywhere in the New Testament that any Christian used any weapon against any persecution, of which there was much. Jesus used hyperbole to disclose that the Disciples were going to face persecution, unlike in the past, when they were accommodated as they preached the Gospel of the Kingdom:

We can see a few verses later that Jesus did not literally call on His disciples to buy swords to deal with persecution.

Mt.26:50b-54 Mk.14:46-49 Lk.22:49-53 Jn.18:10,11
The men seized Jesus and arrested him. [Luke:] When Jesus' followers saw what was going to happen, they said, "Lord, should we strike with our swords?" '"Then Simon Peter, who had a sword, drew it and struck the high priest's servant, cutting off his right ear. (The servant's name was Malchus.) [Matt.:] Put your sword back in its place," Jesus said to him, "for all who draw the sword will die by the sword. Do you think I cannot call on my Father, and he will at once put at my disposal more than twelve legions of angels? But how then would the Scriptures be fulfilled that say it must happen in this way?" [Luke:] But Jesus answered, "No more of this!" And he touched the man's ear and healed him.
Then Jesus said to the chief priests, the officers of the temple guard, and the elders, who had come for him, "Am I leading a rebellion, that you have come with swords and clubs? Every day I was with you in the temple courts, and you did not lay a hand on me. But this is your hour—when darkness reigns.

If Jesus had told His followers to buy swords, it would have been because He was indeed leading a rebellion, and commanding them to "resist evil" (Matthew 5:10-12, 38-48) using armed force.
  1. After Peter had cut off Malchus’ ear, Jesus did not tell Peter to throw away his sword but to put it back in its sheath. Evidently there would be other occasions where it could be rightfully used (John 18:11).
    God’s plan of salvation called for Christ to die. The disciples would have hindered God’s plan if they had risen up to fight for Christ and delivered Him from the Jews. When force is exercised to hinder God’s plan or revelation, it is unjustified violence. Such illegitimate violence will only lead to further violence (Matt. 26:52).
 Some people in those days carried swords to fight off wild beasts. Sometimes the Bible speaks of evil men as "beasts," but Christians never used swords against those who are created in the Image of God. They used the "sword of the Spirit, which is the Word of God" (Ephesians 6:17;Isaiah 49:2; Hebrews 4:12; Revelation 1:16; 2:16; 19:15; Isaiah 55:11 ).

I'm reminded of an anecdote from the Harvard Gazette, which described Commencements, from 1642 onward :

In those days too, wolves still prowled what is present-day Cambridge Common. Beyond what is now Linnaean Street was a howling wilderness, a Grimm Brothers gloom hovering at the edge of fairy-tale Harvard. The barrier of forest and beasts was so daunting that it took the Puritan founders of Cambridge another century to spread their settlement as far north as present-day Rindge Avenue, a mile from Harvard Square.

All around was “unexplored wilderness — extending over … fragile dwellings its fear-inspiring shades,” wrote historian Josiah Quincy III of the College’s first years. “In the night,” added this Harvard president (1829-1845), “slumbers were broken by the howl of the wild beast, or by the yell and the warwhoop of the savage.” Contemporary feelings and fears were laid bare in “New Englands First Fruits,” whose first page says of Native Americans, “our very bowels yerning within us to see them go downe to Hell by swarms without remedy.” About 30 years after Harvard’s first Commencement came the violent King Philip’s War, in which 12 colonial towns were destroyed and 10 percent of white men of military age were killed, along with untold Native Americans.

In contrast to the Puritans of Massachusetts, who were wishing that all the Indians would go to hell,, Anabaptists and other Christians in a more pacifist tradition, like William Penn the Quaker, and John Eliot, were more optimistic about the power of the Word of God to change hearts and pacify savages, and learned the Indian languages in the hopes of winning the natives to Christ. Did Morey go to Harvard?
  1. Later during one of His trials, Jesus said He could call upon an entire army of angels to fight for Him if He wished to be delivered from death (Matt. 26:53).
 Jesus would ultimately call upon an army to destroy Jerusalem, conferring no authority on Christians to do anything like that to any other city or state.
Obviously, Jesus felt that the use of such force in certain circumstances would be perfectly just. But Christ had come to fulfill the Old Testament prophecies concerning His death (Matt. 26:54). This explains why Jesus did not call upon His disciples or the angels of God to fight for Him. It was not because He was a pacifist, but because He had come to die for our sins. Why couldn't Jesus order His disciples to fight for Him, and then He could die for our sins in battle? Why did He have to allow Himself passively to be tortured to death? Why are His followers commanded to follow His pacifist example when they don't have to die for anyone's sins:
1 Peter 2
18 Slaves, be submissive to your masters with all fear, not only to the good and gentle, but also to the harsh. 19 For this is commendable, if because of conscience toward God one endures grief, suffering wrongfully. 20 For what credit is it if, when you are beaten for your faults, you take it patiently? But when you do good and suffer, if you take it patiently, this is commendable before God. 21 For to this you were called, because Christ also suffered for us, leaving us an example, that you should follow His steps:
22 “Who committed no sin,
Nor was deceit found in His mouth”;
23 who, when He was reviled, did not revile in return; when He suffered, He did not threaten, but committed Himself to Him who judges righteously; 24 who Himself bore our sins in His own body on the tree, that we, having died to sins, might live for righteousness—by whose stripes you were healed. 2

"Did not threaten."
Did not threaten what?
Did not threaten to used the kind of force that Morey advocates.
In the light of these fourteen points, we can logically conclude that the most probable position of Jesus according to the Gospel data is that He supported the scriptural use of force in personal or civil defense. From the beginning to the end of His ministry, Jesus spoke with approval of the just use of force. At no time did He condemn it. Morey speaks of "the Scriptural use of force," but we haven't see the Scriptural support for force that Morey is talking about.

Jesus repeatedly condemned the use of force. The Zealots were plotting to use force against the Roman military occupation. Jesus said to carry their provisions an extra mile. When God puts a nation under tribute, He prohibits "civil defense."
The Sermon on the Mount
Of all the sermons which the Son of God preached to the multitudes, the Sermon on the Mount has always been the favorite of God’s people. Even non-Christian scholars acknowledge the amazing depth, clarity, and practicality of this sermon. Its ethical force lives on in the hearts of people all over the world.		  
In order for us to understand this passage of Scripture in all of its depth and beauty, we must be careful to observe the principle of context. Christ is contrasting His view of the inner spirituality of the law of God to the externalized legalistic interpretation of the law that had arisen in rabbinic Judaism. The contrast between "inner" and "externalized" is unBiblical. See here. The Jews were not even "externally" obedient to God's Law. They substituted their own traditions for God's Word.
This is important to point out because a superficial reading of the sermon might lead some to think that Christ was attacking the Old Testament Scriptures. Indeed, some commentators interpret the Sermon on the Mount as the place where Jesus contrasted His New Testament ethic of love with the Old Testament ethic of hate. They claim Jesus directly rejected the Old Testament. Marcion felt this way, too. Marcionism was one of the ancient heresies condemned by the early church. It pitted the New Testament against the Old Testament.  
Marcion taught that the Old Testament was worthless so far as a Christian was concerned.1  
The early Christians condemned Marcion’s position on the Old Testament for several reasons:  
  1. Christ began this sermon by assuring His audience that He had not come to destroy the Old Testament (Matt. 5:17). Indeed, this would have been impossible because the smallest stroke in the law must be fulfilled (v. 18). Furthermore, anyone who attacks the Old Testament, misinterprets its commands or encourages people to break its laws, will be least in the kingdom of heaven (v. 19).
    With Christ’s disclaimer at the beginning of His sermon, it is impossible to interpret His subsequent words as an attack on the Old Testament Scriptures.
  
  1. In Matt. 5:20, Jesus zeroes in on what He is going to deal with in His sermon when He refers to “the righteousness of the Pharisees.” He refers to the traditions and teachings of rabbinic Judaism that had arisen during the intertestamental period. The Mishna, Midrash and Talmuds have preserved some of these traditions. (The intertestamental period is the time gap between the last book in the Old Testament and Jesus’ birth, about 400 years.)
    The Pharisees had become legalistic in their devotion to the traditional interpretation of the law as given by their fathers. They had voided the meaning of God’s law through their man-made traditions. Thus Jesus and the Pharisees frequently fought over whether we should follow tradition or Scripture (see Mark 7:1-13 as an example).
  
  1. Since Jesus was refuting the rabbinic interpretation of the law and not the law itself, He introduced His points by saying, “You have heard that it was said to people long ago … but I tell you …” (Matt. 5:21, 27, 33).
    If He had been quoting Scripture, then He would have used His usual formula: “It is written…” He was not rejecting the Old Testament, but the warped and twisted interpretation  the Pharisees used when they explained it.
  
  1. A final proof that Jesus was dealing with rabbinic law is found in verse 21 where He said, “Anyone who murders will be subject to judgment.” This statement is not a quote from the Old Testament but from some rabbinical writing. Most modern commentators point this out clearly.2
 These four points are fairly accurate.
Now that we have properly identified the context of the sermon, we can begin to make several observations on its content.  
First, nowhere in this sermon does Jesus bring up the subject of the state or whether or not governments can protect their citizens with armed forces. He does not mention the subject of war at any point. Not true
This is a vital point because the Sermon on the Mount has been incorrectly used at times to condemn all warfare. Jesus never brought up such subjects. So any claims that the Sermon on the Mount calls for national or international pacifism must be rejected as exegetically erroneous.  
Second, Jesus is clearly discussing personal ethics. He is describing vital inner qualities of piety and the ways in which we should respond to our neighbors when they become sources of irritation.3  
That is why Jesus could talk about loving one’s neighbor, turning the other cheek and giving ones’ coat to someone. At no point in the passage does Jesus discuss national or international ethics.  
This last point is very important because it would be a basic logical error to assume that personal ethics can be applied to national or international situations without modification. It is rather simplistic to assume that the rules in Matthew 5 governing personal behavior during times of peace must be followed by nations in times of peace or war.  
Third, while Jesus reestablishes the Old Testament principle that individuals should not seek personal vengeance (Lev. 19:18, Matt. 5:38-42), this can hardly be applied to the church or to the state. Both are under divine obligation to punish offenders.  
The church has a moral obligation to punish an offending member even to the point of excommunication (Matt. 18:17; 1 Cor. 5:4, 5).  
If personal ethics must apply to the church, then the church’s use of moral, spiritual and ecclesiastical force in disciplining its members must be viewed as wrong. But if the church’s use of spiritual force in disciplining its membership is correct, then the church has a unique set of rules to guide its behavior, not the personal ethics of Matthew 5.  
The state has a moral obligation to punish offenders even to the point of death (Rom. 13:1-4). While it is wrong for individuals to take the law in their hands and punish people out of personal vengeance, the Scriptures clearly teach that the state is to use the sword to punish evildoers and to protect the good. The state cannot function on the basis of personal ethics if it is to fulfill its God-given task.  
Fourth, Jesus was not discussing what to do if one’s life is threatened or what to do if the life of a spouse or child is threatened. We are to avoid overreacting or exploding in anger when we receive personal insults. Don’t be so quick to respond in like manner when evil is done to you. Don’t be short-tempered but be patient and kind.  
For example, in Matt. 5:39, Jesus specifically referred to the right cheek as being slapped instead of the left cheek because the slap of the right cheek by the back of the left hand was a personal insult and not an act of violence done in the context of war. Slapping the right cheek was not a life-threatening attack. It was a personal insult, like spitting in someone’s face.4  
Fifth, let us take a close look at some of Jesus’ words which some people have mistakenly interpreted as teaching pacifism.  
“Blessed are the meek” (v. 5). We must not assume that meekness means weakness. This is clear from the simple observation that Moses was described as “very meek, more than any other man on the face of the earth” (Num. 12:3).  
Since Moses was a man of strong, aggressive leadership and was involved in warfare, being “meek” has nothing to do with being passive toward evil or the enemies of God. The word itself carries the connotation of a quiet strength and resolution to overcome evil.  
“Blessed are the peacemakers” (v 9). The Greek word “peacemaker” was one of Caesar’s titles.5 He was called “the peacemaker” because he won and maintained peace by the use of force. The word does not mean “peaceable” or “pacifistic” or “peace at any price.” The word meant “peace through strength.” As such, it named the head of the Roman army without contradiction.  
“Do not resist him that is evil” (v. 39). When Jesus gives us the general principle that we should not be quick in returning evil for evil, His subject is dealing with your neighbor. We should personally be willing to go the second mile in enduring personal insults in order to win our neighbors to Christ.  
The idea that Jesus is here saying that no resistance of any kind is to be made against evil is absurd. Even extreme pacifists resist evil by peace demonstrations, hunger strikes, not paying taxes, denying the military draft. Yet nonviolent and passive resistance are still resistance.  
Equally absurd is the idea that resistance against any kind of evil whatever is condemned by Jesus. The New Testament tells us to “resist the devil” (1 Pet. 5:9; James 4:7). Didn’t Jesus resist the Pharisees (Matt. 23)? Aren’t all Christians called upon to fight for the faith (Jude 3)? Are we not called upon to resist heretics (1 Tim. 1:3-11; Titus 1:9-11)? Certain kinds of evil should be endured while other kinds of evil must be resisted.  
Conclusion
Our survey of the Gospels has revealed that Jesus supported the scriptural use of force for personal or national defense.		  
There is no evidence in the Gospel material that Jesus taught pacifism or nonresistance. On the other hand, Jesus’ use of the just-war model as the basis for multiple parables and as the pattern for the Judgment Day revealed that He was not in any way uncomfortable with Old Testament teaching in this regard.  
For Review and Discussion  
  1. Did Jesus ever condemn the Old Testament’s approval of the use of force?
  
  1. How can we discover what Jesus might have said if He had been asked about Christians being involved in the military? Did He tell soldiers to desert their post?
  
  1. Would Jesus use the just-war model as the basis of some of His parables if He and His hearers were pacifists? Would a modern pacifist bring up war and capital punishment without registering some kind of protest? Did Jesus ever register such protests when He brought up such things?
  
  1. Did Jesus use force in cleansing the Temple, in escaping His enemies, or at His arrest?
  
  1. Was Jesus rejecting the Old Testament in His “Sermon on the Mount”? Was He dealing with personal ethics or international justice? Can personal ethics be applied to the church and the state, or do they follow special rules?
  
This is an excerpt of When is it Right to Fight? by Robert Morey