By Milo Schwarz

The pacifism of Jesus is one of the most contested ideas in religious history. While broadly accepted by early followers, the nonviolent nature of the Jesus movement eventually faded. Formerly radical and anti-imperial theology was gradually eclipsed by the need for state acceptance and the comfort of the wealthy. However, the New Testament itself still recorded the incredible radicality of Jesus’ approach to violence.

As Quakers, followers of Jesus, our Society has depended deeply on the Gospels to ground our peace testimony. I hope you find these selections from the Scriptures of Truth (as Friends historically referred to the Bible as), as nourishing as I have.

Further, they provide something deeply practical. In an era of hyper-militarism and gross idolization of violence, we turn to Jesus to find the divine example. In Jesus, the fullness of God is revealed, showing us the revolutionary path to a world without bloodshed.

Matthew 5:38-39                                                                                                         

“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.”

Many Friends may not be surprised at the inclusion of this verse here. Indeed, it is one the most famous phrases ever uttered in human history. However, despite the popularity of this saying, the radical meaning underpinning it is often ignored.

Jesus overtly addresses the violent legalism of Hebrew Law, which demanded material (often physical) retribution. In addressing His audiences prior encounter with the Divine and violence, he paves the way for a new, revolutionary disruption to the status quo. The key to understanding the radical nature of this verse lies in the original language of the Gospel writers: Greek.

Resist in Greek is rendered ἀντιστῆναι (antistēnai). Antistēnai has distinctly physical connotations. Jesus is not telling us to accept abuse or be complacent in the face of evil, but to reject partaking in the system of violence altogether. Even when we face evil, Jesus tells us plainly not to engage in violence. When we are offered violence, deny dignifying the sin. Exploitation is not the lot of the Christian to partake in, physical resistance is out of the question.

John 18:36                                                                                                                 

“Jesus answered, “My kingdom is not of this world. If my kingdom were of this world, my servants would have been fighting, that I might not be delivered over to the Jews. But my kingdom is not from the world.”

An often passed over verse, this one rings the fundamental fact of Jesus’ ministry. The Kingdom of God movement which Jesus started had clear material and immaterial goals. Unlike the material and wealth obsessed Roman Empire of his day, Jesus preached a gospel to the poor of Galilee and other regions of Palestine. This gospel (literally meaning ‘Good News’) was a direct challenge to the Roman political cult. Roman society prized wealth and status, items and treasures of ‘the world’. Jesus however was not convinced.

When being interrogated by Roman and Jewish authorities, He refuses to endorse militarism. Notice the carefulness of Jesus’ words, in the last sentence. ‘Not from’ the world is very different from not of the world. Jesus’ movement had real and material political goals, however it did not root its revolutionary morality in wealth or power. It rooted itself in God.

Jesus tells us here that He does not want us to fight for him, physically. If there ever was a just cause for fighting, would it not be to defend the Son of God? Not so. There is no justice in violence for Jesus and he will have none of it. If we are to be his servants, there is a clear prohibition on carnal harm.

Matthew 26:52                                                                                                               

“Then Jesus said to him, “Put your sword back into its place. For all who take the sword will perish by the sword.”

For proponents of violence in Christianity, the story of Jesus instructing the disciples to buy swords is a favorite citation of scripture. The issue with this however, is that they seem to miss the conclusion of the Gospel’s narrative of that story.

In this saying story, Jesus commands the purchase of swords by the Apostles, who do so.

Expecting the arrest of Jesus, the Apostles assume the swords are for self defense but are only able to purchase two. When they bring the weapons to Jesus, He says ‘It is Enough’, and relates to the Apostles the fulfillment of an Old Covenant prophecy. Two swords are obviously not enough to defend Jesus against a force of probably dozens of temple guards.

Further, 12 Apostles would require twelve swords, so two being enough is very paradoxical. So Jesus, what gives?

When the authorities come to arrest Jesus, an Apostle (sometimes identified as Peter), takes one of the swords and cuts off the ear of a servant.

In response, Jesus states the aforementioned saying. In the Gospel of Luke narrative of the story, Jesus is indignant, loudly exclaiming ‘No more of this!’. In Matthew, Christ uses very clear language to condemn violence in a similar vein. ‘All who take the sword’ is a universal condemnation. All means all. Jesus tells us that violence will only beget violence. Our lot is better.

Matthew 10:34                                                                                                              

“Do not think that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I have not come to bring peace, but a sword.”

‘Now Milo..’ a Friend may exclaim, ‘that seems an odd choice!’. You are right! On the surface level, this saying of Jesus seems to actually oppose what we Quakers believe. Why on earth is Jesus not bringing peace? Isn’t He the Prince of Peace? Worse than that, He says he is bringing a sword!

The key here is of course with a closer reading of the text. Let’s consider the circumstances of Jesus here, what ‘earth’ is He really talking about. The society in which Jesus lived was fraught with violence. The institutions of both Jewish and Gentile life were fundamentally reliant on violent social mechanisms.

Jesus informs us here that He has no intentions of reconciliation with this ‘earth’. He is not bringing peace or an acceptance of the way things are, with their bloody connotations but indeed the end of them.

Sword here is more rightly understood as division, given the related narrative about turning against Mother and Father.

Jesus tells us that His followers will not be kin to the state of things. Business as usual, which for Jesus’ contemporaries meant violence, is not acceptable. In this verse, we find that even in sayings which may easily be twisted to endorse violence, Jesus denounces the culture of killing.

Indeed, we Quakers seek no peace with the way things are. We are called to change them. The violent language of Jesus was well known to early Quakers, who viewed themselves as soldiers in ‘the Lambs War’.

The Lambs War and Jesus’ sword here are both representative of the paradoxical language of New Testament pacifism. The Early Jesus people were simultaneously alien to violence and engaging in spiritual warfare to abolish it.

Conclusion: The rich language of the New Testament grounds our pacifism. There are many more examples of radical peacemaking present, these are just a sample! I strongly encourage Friends to immerse themselves in what Jesus calls us to: a radical culture of peace.

Accompanying Block Print Created by Milo Schwarz