Another Clear Teaching
As we move forward with our examination of the Scriptural basis for pacifism we arrive at a very clear and unambiguous truth: the New Testament never sanctions violence. The title of this essay comes from Part II Chapter 3 of Jean Lasserre’s work War and the Gospel. As per usual Lasserre rolls out a simple truth, then examines the various texts that supporters of war use to bolster their case. I will lean on Lasserre and add my own commentary as we go.
A Weak Argument From Silence
Lasserre points out that many opponents of pacifism use the fact that Jesus never condemns or reproaches anyone for being a soldier, even though He has ample opportunity to do so (Luke 3:14, Luke 7:1-10, and John 4:46-53). Lasserre points out that you could justify any number of things by appeal to silence. Jesus never reproached Pilate, so was He alright with Roman occupation? He never reproached the Herodians for their collaboration with the Romans. You see the problem with this weak sauce argument. I would add that Jesus rarely issued “job-specific” condemnations. For example, Jesus never explicitly told a slave owner to abolish slavery, nor did he explicitly tell a merchant to stop participating in a pagan economy. Instead, He established universal principles, such as loving enemies and turning the other cheek, that, by necessity, make the act of killing in war impossible for a follower.
Additionally, I would point out that Jesus also ate with tax collectors and prostitutes without “reproaching” them on the spot. His acceptance of the person was an act of grace, not a stamp of approval on their vocation. Jesus was about changing your heart, a change in profession would likely follow.
Does Jesus Endorse a Strong Man?
Many use Luke 11:21-22 to justify the use of armed force, at least in defense. The text reads: “When a strong man, fully armed, guards his own house, his possessions are safe. But when someone stronger attacks and overpowers him, he takes away the armor in which the man trusted and divides up his plunder. As Lasserre quickly points out the strong man refers to Satan, as this is a parable. More contextually, Jesus is responding to accusations that he casts out demons by the power of Beelzebul. In this analogy, the “strong man” represents Satan (or the powers of evil), and the “stronger” one who overpowers him is Jesus.
Pacifists argue that using this text to justify human violence misidentifies the characters. If a believer identifies with the “strong man” (the one who relies on armor and weapons), they are inadvertently identifying with the figure Jesus is coming to displace.
Did Paul Endorse Military Service?
In a word, no. Paul referenced the military in several passages, but he never expressed any moral judgment on the profession at all. In one such passage 1Cor 9:7 Paul writes “Who serves as a soldier at his own expense? Who plants a vineyard and does not eat its grapes? Who tends a flock and does not drink the milk?” What I think this means is a Roman soldier received a stipendium (pay) and rations. Paul argues that if the secular world recognizes that a soldier shouldn’t have to pay for his own food and equipment while fighting, the church should recognize that an apostle shouldn’t have to fund their own ministry while “fighting” for the Gospel. Paul is simply using the military as a comparison to make a point about the church.
Did Jesus Endorse War?
Absolutely not. Many will point to Luke 14:31-32 “Or suppose a king is about to go to war against another king. Won’t he first sit down and consider whether he is able with ten thousand men to oppose the one coming against him with twenty thousand? If he is not able, he will send a delegation while the other is still a long way off and will ask for terms of peace.” This is often misread as a “realist” justification for maintaining military strength or engaging in “Just War”.
Jesus isn’t teaching how to run a war; he is teaching the total commitment required to be his disciple. Just as it is foolish to start a tower you can’t finish, it is foolish to claim to follow Jesus without realizing it might cost you everything, including your life. In the context of the Gospel, the “king” coming against the disciple is often interpreted as God or the demands of the Kingdom. The pacifist view suggests the “peace” sought isn’t a military treaty, but a total surrender to God’s will.
Jesus Did Reference Violence
There are multiple passages in which Jesus discusses violence that may happen or violence that is used as a parable. A short list: Matt 22:7, Luke 19:27, Luke 20:16. Also there is the mention of wars and rumors of wars (Matt 24:6-7). Lasserre points out, and I completely agree that none of these are spoken of in a normative sense. They are simply descriptive. Jesus is never suggesting that any of His followers take part in any of these violent activities. So, these passages also fail to see Jesus sanctioning violence in any way.
Conclusion
Taken together, the evidence is remarkably consistent: the New Testament never authorizes violence for followers of Jesus. Arguments to the contrary depend either on silence, metaphor misread as prescription, or descriptive passages mistaken for moral endorsement. Jesus’ refusal to issue “job‑specific” condemnations does not weaken the pacifist case; rather, his teaching of universal, kingdom‑shaping principles, love of enemy, non‑retaliation, and self‑giving sacrifice, renders participation in violence incompatible with discipleship. Parables involving force consistently function symbolically, not normatively, and when military imagery appears in Jesus’ or Paul’s teaching, it serves rhetorical or illustrative purposes rather than ethical approval. Violence is named, acknowledged, and even predicted in the New Testament, but it is never commended as a faithful response to evil. The Kingdom Jesus inaugurates advances not through coercion or the sword, but through suffering love, truth, and radical obedience to God. To follow Christ, then, is not merely to avoid explicit commands to violence, but to embrace a way of life that makes violence unthinkable.
Praise Be to God
