Posted by: Adjams | December 17, 2007

Counterblog: Jesus was no Pacifist!

Here is an article that seem to try and argue the against Pacifism.  The comments section is restricted to certain people so I nor JohnO were able to respond to the blog itself there, so I decided to post it here. 



  1. Yes Jesus was a Jew, such a devout Jew would have read the Talmud, but he did change things.
    Jesus was the messiah, that prophet, whose words God put in his mouth that Moses spoke of who gave new commandments. The case may be correct about the common Jew of the first century, but not Jesus, who was to be there spiritual leader and Law giver.
    There was given 4 scripture references in the post
    Luke 22:8 is about preparing for the passover, so I don’t see how it says they carried weapons and verse 50 is listed despite the fact that peter was rebuked for using it to defend Jesus.
    Verses 35-37 do tell people to buy swords, but just from using this verse you don’t over turn the command to love your enemy, instead you have to harmonize the two.
    The pacifist’s verse is not Matthew 5:21 but Matthew 5:43-48
    “You have heard that it was said, ‘you shall love your neighbor and hate your enemy.’ 44 “But I say to you, love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, 45 so that you may be sons of your Father who is in heaven; for He causes His sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous. 46 “For if you love those who love you, what reward do you have? Do not even the tax collectors do the same? 47 “If you greet only your brothers, what more are you doing than others? Do not even the Gentiles do the same? 48 “Therefore you are to be perfect, as your heavenly Father is perfect.

    I hope this has shaken your faith just enough to get you thinking and studying for yourself.

    Bless God

  2. Johnny,

    We’ve got to agree that Jesus was different than his contemporary Jewish rabbis in some respects, correct? We can assume, as a baseline, that he is the same in views. However, when something he says goes against a common view at the time – isn’t it a more sound practice to suggest that he is in fact differing in view from his contemporaries?

    As I understand, the talmud is not binding teaching in any sense. It is up for discussion and heated debate among the rabbis. Would not Jesus’ words “love your enemies, pray for those that despitefully use you”, and “to the who strikes you on the cheek, offer the other” be a difference? Isn’t Jesus asking us there to lay down the rights accorded to us?

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s


%d bloggers like this: