If Jesus attacked the money changers in the Temple then at least according to the definition of pacifism used to accept conscientious objection as a valid reason not to perform military service then no it is not. Pacifism by that definition is renouncing all violence regardless of provocation. Christian societies have always followed this example, and borrowed from Roman Law, in dividing violence into just and unjust.

Timothy, can you on with this explanation? When did they proscribe to just and unjust violence? I accept what you say about the money changers, but is an outburst of feeling, expressed as a strope, really violence?

It certainly would have been taken as such by judges ruling on conscientious objection, at least if the version in which Jesus overturns the tables and 'scourges' the money changers is the accurate one.

The Church itself had fully endorsed the difference between just and unjust violence by 1095, have a look at the various versions of Urban II's Clermont appeal. Prior to this things were more nuanced since the Church generally still considered the outcomes of violence to require penance but still considered some forms of violence justified. A particularly pertinent example of this is the translation of the Bible into Old Saxon, in this Peter's use of a sword in the Garden of Gethsemane is presented as entirely the right thing to do since he was defending his Christ, who was also his lord, from attackers.

Yes, this I know, but my understanding is it is not in the original text and I tend to make a difference between Church and religion (wrongly or rightly), the former an institution that certainly during the Middle Ages was considerably removed from the original Christian tenets. My understanding is that the acceptance of war was brought in by St. Augustine, to deal with the trauma of Roman persecution in North Africa, but before his alteration to the Christian faith violence was not accepted.

Christian responses to persecution were passive and the rise of Donatism as the result of the official Church's pusillannimous response to persecution, pretending not to be Christian after all, angered many who had been tortured or who had had relatives willing to die for the belief- certainly while it was ordinary Christians who submitted to martyrdom.

The problem here is that many of the texts are even more subject to interpretation than is usual. For example Jesus exhorts those who would follow him to buy a

µαχήρα

selling their cloak to provide the funds if need be. This can be interpreted in a purely spiritual way as Jesus exhorting them to increase their spirituality by acquiring a sacrificial dagger, or it can be interpreted as him telling them to arm themselves with swords, the Greek will stand either translation/interpretation. The latter would invalidate the idea of pacifism.

The only person i can recall addressing similar issues is Garrett Fagan in his lecture series on the Emperors of Rome for The Teaching Company. In relation to the Neroneon fire and subsequent crackdown on Christians he suggests that certain saying of Jesus himself, especially the one denying he had come to bring peace but rather fire, might have inspired his followers to indulge in acts of arson. At least one academic therefore has expressed doubts as to the pacifism of early Christianity and it might be worth looking up his other works to see if he has developed these ideas further.

Is Chritianity really a pacifist religion? (sp)

Why do you think this?

Is the pope a pacifist?

Are born again Christians pacifists as they march in the streets?

Are Christians involved in the politics of Washington, DC, and education pacifists?

As someone who works in historical Jesus studies, I would say that almost the consensus of historical Jesus scholars--from theological conservatives like N. T. Wright to theological liberals like John Dominic Crossan--concur that Jesus taught nonviolent resistance to the Roman occupation as an integral part of his kingdom of God agenda. I don't see how the Sermon on the Mount can be understood any other way in its historical context. Since the term "pacifism" often carries the implication of doing nothing, I would use the term "just peacemaking" to most closely approximate Jesus' own perspective.

While Jesus indeed used physical force in his symbolic destruction of the Temple (and physical force is consistent with just peacemaking), he almost certainly would not have endorsed lethal force. The issue with citing Luke 22:35-38 against Jesus' stance on nonviolent resistance is with the Greek term used for "sword." As previously noted, it is machaira--it is not rhomphaia. The difference is critical. A machaira is a long knife or a short sword designed as a multipurpose tool, such as cutting meat or cleaning fish. While it can be used for fighting, that is not its primary purpose. By contrast, a rhomphaia is the kind of sword used only for fighting. So in context, Jesus was telling his disciples to be prepared for a long journey and to take along the appropriate tools, including a money belt, bag, sandals, and a machaira. To clarify this, Jesus said that two swords would be enough. If he envisioned a battle, two swords would never have been enough, but they are plenty if envisioned as traveling tools.

I agree with your understanding, Kirk. Thanks. I don't really nevertheless understand the desire to drag Jesus into the violence spectrum when nothing really indicates that.

But, I do believe his non-violence was a political as much as a moral gesture. Going against the Romans would have been suicide (as it was) for him, his followers and his cause. It had been for others.

surely Stanley it is impossible to answer your question unless we "drag Jesus into the violence spectrum" since in order to determine whether or not Christianity is a pacifist religion then his views are paramount, unless you are dividing what is sometimes called 'The Jesus Movement', i.e. JC and his followers in his lifetime from Christianity the latter being what subsequently developed in his name

I don't actually believe that the original movement is really reflected within Christianity, but nevertheless we have to deal with the mythology, if you like, which by all accounts describes, in Kirk's terms, was a peacemaking one. Again, given the political situation, with the Roman liking for instant justice and apparent indifference to violence (I know of course the cultural imperatives they surrounded it with) they probably had no choice.