I think you could do with reading
this article. Jesus as the ultra pacifist advocate of non-violence has never been the view of theologians.
actually I have done extensive studies on this very point.
I can clip it if you like.
But Jesus never condemned bearing the sword for protection of country, self, or home/family. Your sources would be correct on this. But He did condemn violence, and never asked his followers to bear any type of sword for war. So in this way, He is pacifistic. Most of the Church Theologians have a limited understanding or a one sided view of this. Christ was a pacifist who asked his #1 followers to defend themselves when He would be Gone because HE would be ascending and could not protect them physically. Self Defense is not offensive violence for the gaining of territory. And in stark contrast to the old testament where there was excessive violence for the gaining and keeping of territory. You need to see the whole picture. Once the Jews were rooted in the promised land, and the messiah's lineage was in action. Violence was no longer needed. That was one reason for the OT, wars. The other was for the purging of pagan sects, that were in effect dangerous to the lands, to the spread of disease, to the the tribes that were to become "set apart for God."
Some times the Jews had righteous kings, but 70-80 percent of the Kings of Israel gave into the culture and did what was right in their own eyes.
I do not think that religion is something to war over. Even though I think that religion is not something to war over. I still think that countries that are ruled by religious governments should be able to structurally defend and arm themselves (at least on a legal level, and not a religious level). Now before there was a separation of church and state, that was how America was. It was a group of religious colonists that wanted free enterprise and free religious liberty. At this point war is a grey area. When the church divides from the state, this is when war becomes a state issue and not a religious issue.
I believe Jesus was a pacifist. But why would he heal the roman centurion’s kid and not rebuke Him for his pagan Job? I think it was because the Jews were at peace, the Romans were not. In one way look at it this way, the Jews were the church, the Romans were the state sort to say. So as Augustine states: it is not good for a Christian to defend themselves, however “Just War” is okay to support, as long as it’s the government doing the war not the Church. A soldier can become a Christian, and yet still bear the sword, as long as the soldiers funding does not come from the Church. But again when the church was one with the state these simple logics become clouded. And yet I believe that Christians should be at the front lines as it comes to adhering to the moralities of fair treatment of prisoners of war, (geneva convention). Where as many muslim militants throw the geneva convention rules out the window and care less how prisoners of war are treated. This is where war becomes evil.
Christ due to the fact that He obviously was here and in existence had no need for violence. The Jews for the most part were in a time of peace in the days of Christ. Christ while he never forbade bearing the sword for country of family, did in fact command his disciples to buy a short sword for their missions in-between cities, in effect to keep them from dangerous bandits. As was the tendency in those days, and even still today. Many tour guides in the middle east are packing weapons. But it is note worthy that the sword mentioned is not a long sword, meant for slaying only. It was a short sword, one that was basically meant for basic protection. But also notice that Christ himself never did bear the sword, and when peter chopped off the ear of the high priest servant, Christ healed him, and rebuked peter. So we see in Christ a pacifism, yes. But not necessarily something He forced on all his disciples. Christ, who could call legions of angels really had no need for a sword. Would He? So yes, you could call him pacifistic in a literal sense. So the post is right here, and it would appear your post is slightly inaccurate.
