Was Jesus a Pacifist?

By Tim Gamble

   Between Shadows and Light.

Luke 22:35-38 (NKJV - words of Jesus in red)

35 And He said to them, “When I sent you without money bag, knapsack, and sandals, did you lack anything?” So they said, “Nothing.”

36 Then He said to them, “But now, he who has a money bag, let him take it, and likewise a knapsack; and he who has no sword, let him sell his garment and buy one. 

37 For I say to you that this which is written must still be accomplished in Me: ‘And He was numbered with the transgressors.’ For the things concerning Me have an end.”

38 So they said, “Lord, look, here are two swords.” And He said to them, “It is enough.”

The Context: This teaching takes place immediately before the events at the Mount of Olives and Gethsemane, including the arrest of Jesus (which is described in verses 39-53 of this same chapter). I encourage you to read for yourself the full context of all Bible quotes from me or anyone else. Context matters. 

Tim’s Commentary: Earlier in his ministry, Jesus had sent out his disciples without money bag or money, knapsack, and sandals. The idea at this point was to trust God to provide for their needs. And, indeed, they did not lack anything. This was part of their training as disciples. 

Difficult times are coming. At several points, Jesus forewarns His disciples of future persecution (Matthew 24:9-13, Mark 13:9-13, Luke 21:12-19, John 15:18-21 among others) and tells them to prepare for whatever may lie ahead. Here He states “But now, he who has a money bag, let him take it, and likewise a knapsack; and he who has no sword, let him sell his garment and buy one.” 

Different interpretations of Luke 22:35-38 are possible. 

First, that Jesus is speaking metaphorically, warning His disciples to prepare spiritually for the spiritual battles ahead (see Ephesians 6:10-17, the “Whole Armor of God” passage). 

Second, that Jesus is speaking literally, suggesting that His disciples need to prepare for the difficult times that are ahead of them, including arming themselves for self-defense.

Third, that Jesus is speaking to both ideas – metaphorically of spiritual battles, and more literally of physical preparations for future difficulties and persecution.

Those that prefer the metaphorical interpretation typically point out that the disciples misunderstand Jesus’ command and produce literal swords, and Jesus’ rebukes them by saying “It is enough,” essentially meaning, “Enough of this talk about swords.” They also point out that just a few minutes later Jesus will stop Peter from using a literal sword to stop His arrest (though unnamed in Luke, Peter is identified as the swordsman in John 18:10).

Those that prefer the literal interpretation typically point out that the moneybag and knapsack and garment in this same verse are literal, and so the sword must be taken literally as well. They also point out that Jesus’ response of “It is enough” actually approves the swords the disciples have as being enough, and that Jesus’ later rebuke of Peter in verses 49–51 only prohibits them from blocking His arrest and suffering, which must happen to fulfill old testament prophies. Finally, they point out that the very fact that the disciples possess swords proves that Jesus did not prohibit them from carrying swords up to this point, and that we have no record of Jesus prohibiting swords or teaching against self-defense.

In John 18:10-11 we read this detail: "Then Simon Peter, having a sword, drew it and struck the high priest’s servant, and cut off his right ear. The servant’s name was Malchus. So Jesus said to Peter, “Put your sword into the sheath. Shall I not drink the cup which My Father has given Me?”

Two things of note: First, that Jesus did not want to stop His arrest and suffering, referring to it as "the cup which My Father has given me," and that was why He stopped Peter. Second, that He specifically tells Peter to "Put your sword into the sheath," and does not rebuke Peter for having it, nor tells him to get rid of it. 

In Luke 22:36, Jesus is clearly drawing a distinction (“but now”) between the way His disciples went out to the people early on in His ministry, and the way they must go out in the difficult times ahead. 

Father Lawrence Farley, an Eastern Orthodox priest, in his commentary The Gospel of Luke – Good News for the Poor, writes: “Difficult times are indeed coming, and Christ forewarns His disciples of the dangers to come. He asks them to compare the time when He sent them out with purse and bags and sandals (9:1f) to the coming days. In those earlier times of mission, did they lack anything? They answered “Nothing” – they had all they needed, being supplied by the hospitality they encountered. But now, things will be different. They cannot count on receiving hospitality or help but must rely solely on themselves. Persecution, not welcome, would be the order of the day.”

The point Jesus was making is that the disciples must now rely on themselves for their needs. But, what does it mean for the disciples to rely on themselves? Earlier, Jesus sent His disciples out without anything other than the clothes they were wearing. They were to rely on the hospitality of others for their needs. But now, they “must now provide for their own needs and not rely on receiving a friendly welcome” (Fr. Farley). In contrast, Jesus now tells His disciples to prepare – to take money and knapsack and sword, even if they had to sell their garment to buy one. 

Certainly, a major part preparedness for the followers of Jesus is spiritual preparedness (the metaphorical interpretation). But, spiritual preparedness had not been among the things forbidden by Jesus earlier, only physical preparations. Allowing spiritual preparations, therefore, would not be a contrast to the earlier way, only a continuation of the same. A purely metaphorical interpretation fails to provide the needed contrast. Since Jesus obviously intended his statement to show a contrast, it has to be more than just a metaphor.

It also makes little sense for the sword alone to be a metaphor, while the other items in the same sentence are meant literally. 

Specifically about the sword, Fr. Farley writes: “Literally speaking two swords among eleven disciples are nothing and will be quite inadequate to defend them against actual armed attack. But Jesus was not referring to actual armed combat, but to their using their own resources in reliance on the power of God. Therefore, He answers “It is sufficient,” for even such small resources are sufficient if accompanied by faith in God.” 

God can use our preparations - our actions and resources - meager as they might be, to accomplish His will. But, this doesn’t mean that we aren’t supposed to make preparations. Indeed, the Bible is replete with examples of God requiring His people to prepare for future difficulties. 

But what about Jesus’ rebuke of Peter later that same night? When the authorities came to arrest Jesus, Peter used a sword to defend Him, cutting off the ear of the servant of the high priest (Luke 22:50). This resulted in a sharp rebuke of Peter from Jesus (Luke 22:51). This rebuke is often used to paint a picture of a pacifist Jesus, who prohibits even self-defense. 

The problems with that interpretation are many: 1) Jesus never prohibits self-defense in any of His teachings; 2) it goes against the nature of Jesus, who is shown to act forcibly when the situation called for it, such as His attack on the money-changers at the Temple (see John 2:13-16), when He made a whip and used it against the money-changers, overturning tables, scattering money, and driving the money-changers from the Temple; 3) Jesus never forbids His disciples from carrying swords, as shown by the fact that at least two of them were carrying swords during the events recorded in Luke 2.

Jesus taught love and forgiveness, but never taught pacifism. Loving our neighbor does not in any way preclude self-defense or forceful actions when necessary. Forgiving others does not mean we must allow them to continue hurting or threatening us.

A more accurate interpretation of the rebuke of Peter is Jesus was upset at Peter for not realizing what must happen to Him for scripture to be fulfilled.  Jesus’ death and resurrection, not armed rebellion or the establishment of an earthly kingdom, is what must happen. This lack of understanding on the part of the disciples was a long-standing frustration for Jesus. It was this lack of understanding that Jesus rebuked, not the sword itself.

Conclusions: There are many lessons that can be learned from Luke 22. One lesson is that the followers of Jesus are NOT guaranteed easy times ahead. In fact, persecution at the hands of the worldly system is to be expected, as Jesus warned His disciples. Another is that the followers of Jesus are told to actually prepare for difficult times and persecutions ahead. This certainly requires spiritual preparations (growing in our relationship with God). It also requires physical preparations, including preparations for self-defense when necessary. 

Finally, let me give warning against a non-biblical presentation of Jesus that is in vogue among many Christians today. Remember the Pajama Boy from the Obamacare push years ago? It became quite the Internet meme at the time. Many modern Christians today see Jesus as kind of an ultimate Pajama Boy – a super-sensitive, in-touch-with-his-feminine-side, person solely about love, peace, and forgiveness. This is NOT the biblical Jesus.

Yes, Jesus was about love, peace, and forgiveness. But He was also a man of action, a forceful personality, aggressive when He needed to be, uncompromising in His values and expectations, willing to stand up against evil, willing to upset the authorities and the status-quo, willing commit civil disobedience, unconcerned with public opinion, strong and fearless. A true man’s man!

Yes, Jesus was quick to forgive, but at the same time He also demanded repentance - that those who received His forgiveness turn away from their sin and turn back to the ways of God. Forgiveness of the sinner never meant acceptance of the sin. Too many Christians today so emphasize the forgiveness part, that they forget about the repentance that must accompany forgiveness.

The Pajama Boy Jesus is preferred by many people today despite its incompleteness and inaccuracies. Many folks are simply uncomfortable with those aspects of Jesus that clash with modern worldly sensitivities. But we ignore the fullness of Jesus’ personality and teachings at our own peril. 

Agree? Disagree? Please feel free to leave your comments below.

!!! ANOUNCEMENT !!! I’m on Buy Me A Coffee, which enables people to support my work with "tips" as small as $3. If you like my work and what I'm am trying to accomplish by motivating and teaching others, you can buy me a coffee at: buymeacoffee.com/TimGamble