This past Sunday we looked at an aspect of the character and nature of Jesus that the Church has, as a whole, really seemed to have passed over throughout history: Jesus’ non-violence. This is not entirely true – there are pockets of movements over the past few hundred years that would challenge this assertion, but it does seem that overall, the Church has failed to emphasize the non-violent nature of Jesus. This, despite the fact that the overall picture presented of Jesus in the New Testament is that not only did he teach an ethic of non-violence but he embodied it as well, most notably at the cross. If this is so, we asked the question why hasn’t the Church done a better job at promoting non-violence and practicing non-violence?

One reason I noted but did not dive deep into was that the Bible, when read through a particular lens, can present a confusing portrait of Jesus that on one page suggests he’s all about non-violent resistance and on another suggests he not only condones it but even participates in it. For instance, we read about Jesus flipping tables and driving out the money changers from the Temple and we might, reasonably, conclude that this seems pretty violent. And if Jesus is the perfect revelation of the Father, i.e. the God of the Old Testament, then we’ve got a lot of work to do to make the Old Testament God fit in with the non-violent nature of Jesus. And what about the time Jesus says “I did not come to bring peace but a sword” (Matt. 10:34)? Not to mention Revelation, where Jesus apparently comes riding on a horse with a sword in his mouth, ready to slaughter everyone. Yikes.

So what do we do with all of this? It’s pretty important that as Christians who take the scriptures seriously, we seek to understand what is going on. I thought this week I’d provide a brief thought or two and some resources for diving deeper into sifting through this if it happens to be something of interest to you.

First thing to establish is that we always begin with the overall picture of Jesus and then we work out from here. As demonstrated on Sunday, both the majority of his teachings and his own life—and especially His death—demonstrate Jesus did in fact advocate for non-violent resistance and peacemaking. That means, for example, if we take a passage like Luke 22 where Jesus tells his disciples to sell their cloak and buy a sword, we must ask if there’s something else going on here. The surface level reading of this does suggest, “Hey, Jesus is saying let’s get ready for a fight because he’s telling his disciples to bear arms.” But again, if his enemy-love teaching holds weight, then this just simply can’t mean that. …And actually, it doesn’t.

Here’s the passage:

“He said to them, ‘When I sent you out without a purse, bag, or sandals, did you lack anything?’ They said, ‘No, not a thing.’ He said to them, ‘But now, the one who has a purse must take it, and likewise a bag. And the one who has no sword must sell his cloak and buy one. For I tell you, this scripture must be fulfilled in me, “And he was counted among the lawless”; and indeed what is written about me is being fulfilled.’ They said, ‘Lord, look, here are two swords.’ He replied, ‘It is enough.’”

The full context of Luke 22 is that this conversation happens after the Last Supper, right before Jesus is about to be arrested. Jesus instructs them to take a sword not so that they can defend themselves or have a weapon for their assault on the Empire. Rather, Jesus instructs this in order to fulfill the prophecy: “And he was counted among the lawless” found in Isaiah 53. In other words, in order for the arrest to happen, the Romans needed to have reasonable suspicion that a revolt was being planned. And if his disciples had swords, that would substantiate the rationale for the arrest. Next, we see the disciples present 2 swords and Jesus’ response confirms this understanding of the passage: “It is enough.” If Jesus meant for the disciples to bear arms and actually revolt or resist the Romans, 2 swords would hardly be enough. But if it his plan is just to have enough justification for an arrest, then 2 swords is perfect.

We further know this reading is a reliable interpretation because in the Garden, when Peter, a bit dim-witted if we’re being honest, slices off an ear of a servant, Jesus rebukes him and tells him that if he lives by the sword he’ll die by it and then reaches out and heals the servant’s ear. That is, he’s reinforcing the truth that what’s about to happen has nothing to do with swords or violence on his part. This powerful moment serves as a “cherry-on-top” regarding the question of whether Jesus was actually telling his disciples to bear arms or not.

I share this particular rationale and understanding of this passage because in my experience and interactions, I’ve heard it often used as a “gotcha” passage to push against the non-violent nature of Jesus and his kingdom. The thing is, we can read each of these tricky passages and arrive at a similar conclusion. Are they all as simple and straightforward? Unfortunately, not. I wish it were just a simple clarification but the truth is, some passages prove difficult and remain mysterious. That said, because I hold to the overall story of the Bible as presenting Jesus to be non-violent, I tend to conclude that the rationales provided for these clobber passages do hold water… but hey, you can disagree with this and I am okay with that!

And for those interested, here is non-exhaustive list of resources to help make sense of some of the other challenging verses/passages that seem to challenge the non-violent nature of Jesus. If this is something you want to research and get to the bottom of, I recommend starting with this article by Ron Snider called, “Why do most Christians reject Pacifism?” and then dive deeper on each of these “problem” passages:

• Jesus flipping Tables (found in all 4 gospels) – Does Jesus’ “Temple Tantrum” Negate Pacifism and Nonviolence? By Michael Pahl; The Nonviolent Revolutionary by John Dear
• “I did not come to bring Peace but a Sword” – Jesus Did not Come to bring a Sword, but Peace by C.B. Robertson; What Jesus Meant when He Said, “I didn’t Come to Bring a Peace, but a Sword” By Benjamin Corey
• Revelation’s violent portrayal of Jesus – Upside-Down Apocalypse by Jeremy Duncan; Revelation as a Peace Book by Ted Grimsrud; Will Jesus Wage a Literal War According to Revelation? By Greg Boyd

And finally (and most contentiously perhaps), here are a few different attempts to reconcile the God of violence in the Old Testament with the non-violent Jesus of the New Testament. As a caveat, we don’t have to agree here on which “take” is the right one but I’m sharing a few of these to show you the various avenues of explaining how this “problem” is accounted for through modern scholarship:

• Old Testament Violence – Jesus and Violent Old Testament Passages Jesus Collective podcast with Greg Boyd; “God lets his Children Tell the Story”: An Angle on God’s Violence in the Old Testament” with Pete Enns; Jericho and Canaanite Genocide sermon by Zach W. Lambert; Disarming Scripture by Derek Flood; Of God and Genocide by Brian Zahnd. And for a more conventional take, check out Thinking through Old Testament Violence with Andrew Judd at The Gospel Coalition.

Well, there you have it. Now, the real challenge is that if it’s actually true and Jesus was entirely non-violent and actually wants us to be non-violent as well, then, well, it means we may need to start thinking about the implications of all this in our own lives. The truth is, for us to embody a way of living that resists violence in all its ugly forms, we’ll need the rest of our lives to sort it out… and what better time to start pondering and praying toward what this might look like than this very moment?!