Was Jesus Violent?

Following the decision of the United States government to bomb three suspected nuclear facilities in Iran, the Secretary of Defense, Pete Hegseth, associated bombs with God’s providence and God’s glory. In light of these events, it is worth raising the question whether the Jesus that the American administration admires so much was violent or nonviolent.

What is the evidence that Jesus was violent or, at least, believed in a violent God? Many biblical scholars and lay Bible readers believe that Jesus warned about the end of time when God’s wrath would be poured out upon the earth. These end-of-time warnings are called apocalyptic sayings, and since these sayings involve proclaiming violence, readers assume the proclaimer is a violent messenger.[1] When we ask whether Jesus was violent, we are asking whether he proclaimed a violent God who will not hesitate to destroy all enemies at the end of time.

Two types of Bible citation are consistently used to prove Jesus was a violent person who believed in a violent God. One type is warnings about the Son of Man returning to earth to inaugurate an age of judgement.[2] The second type portrays Jesus as a figure whose earthly ministry involved a battle with Satan. When these two typologies are combined, the result is a picture of Jesus fighting the evils of this age and warning about a judgement to come. For the most part, to believe that Jesus was violent is to believe these two aspects (fighting Satan and being the Son of Man) defined the life of Jesus.

The sayings related to the Son of Man suggest Jesus either believed that a divine figure would soon arrive to judge the earth (with the image taken from Daniel 7:13) or that Jesus was himself the divine figure who would return after death to judge the earth. In both cases, the Son of Man is a figure who inaugurates violence, and Jesus either believed in this figure or believed he was this figure. Two gospel verses are usually cited to prove that Jesus was or believed in the Son of Man. One is Mark 13:26 where Jesus claims that the Son of Man will descend on a cloud to judge humanity, and the other is Luke 12:8–9 where Jesus warns that whoever does not acknowledge him will not be acknowledged by the Son of Man. In both these sayings, the Son of Man is a future figure who spells trouble for nonbelievers.

In the other approach to proving that Jesus was violent, his earthly ministry is defined as a fight against Satan. Here, too, a few gospel sayings are put to good use. One is Luke 11:20, a Q saying, where Jesus claims to cast out demons by the finger of God, and a second is Mark 3:27, where Jesus, accused of being demon possessed, seems to suggest that to the contrary he is the one to tie up Satan and plunder his house. It is somewhat of a stretch to read Mark 3:27 in this way, but nevertheless the verse is used to prove Jesus preached violence as the means of overcoming evil.

Neither one of these ways to prove that Jesus was violent are used in fundamentalist Christianity. Fundamentalist Christianity is more interested in Jesus returning to earth with violence. In fundamentalism, there needs to be a great war, an Armageddon, to establish God’s rule on earth, so fundamentalist Christianity more often appeals to Ezekiel chapters 37 and 38, where God scores a military victory, and to Revelation where God is joyfully violent when overthrowing enemies. Jesus in the gospels does not refer to Ezekiel or Revelation, but since fundamentalism prioritizes a violent Jesus returning to earth, this Jesus happily uses violence to solve problems.

There are several reasons to reject the idea that Jesus was violent. The main reason is that each of the sayings and the images above express beliefs about Jesus. The beliefs consist of proclaiming that Jesus is the Son of Man who will return on a cloud and proclaiming that Jesus’ ministry was a showdown between God and Satan. These two proclamations turn Jesus into a military general who will oversee the final cosmic battle with evil. Are these violent beliefs about Jesus really things that Jesus would say about himself? Are we to believe that the message of Jesus was to believe in Jesus?

When we get down to the most basic sayings associated with Jesus, there is no violence to highlight. “Love your enemies” is a Jesus saying few dispute that is obviously not violent. “Turn the other cheek,” however one interprets this saying, does not advocate for revenge. “How blessed are the poor,” another undisputed Jesus saying, lacks any hint of violence but instead compels compassion for suffering. The Good Samaritan parable, again however we interpret it, advocates for compassion. The most widely accepted sayings attributed to Jesus lack violent imagery, do not express beliefs about Jesus, and compel the reader to act with compassion.

The four great monotheistic religious traditions of Zoroastrianism, Judaism, Christianity, and Islam all hold that the first quality of God is compassion, not violence. The opening words of the Qur’an are “In the name of God, the most forgiving and the most compassionate.” The directive of Zoroastrianism is to practice good deeds, and one does so because God is good. In Judaism, to follow the Torah is to love your fellow human beings as yourself. In monotheism, to act in the name of God is to act with compassion, for God is the parent, the source of life, for all living things. To bring harm to another is to bring harm to God.

The historical evidence related to the sayings of Jesus is that Jesus followed the God of compassion. The evidence from the life of Jesus, as much as evidence from the Judaism that he would have known, is that God is compassion and that to know God is to be compassionate—a standard monotheistic teaching.

Jesus more likely advocated being compassionate as God is compassionate (Luke 6:36) than getting even with your enemies. He was more likely a figure of nonviolence (Matt 5:38–42) than a figure of violence. It is unlikely he would give glory to God for violence, and it is most likely he was not a fundamentalist practitioner of religion.

While it is difficult to know what political position Jesus might take today, it is certainly possible to know that whatever position he would take, it would not be one centered on violence.

‍

[1] Johannes Weisse (1863–1914) is the main scholar who defined Jesus as an apocalyptic prophet and influenced generations of Jesus scholarship. His thesis is found in his book Jesus’ Proclamation of the Kingdom of God (1892).

[2] I am translating the Greek in the traditional way. In Greek, the wording is “son of humanity,” but I am emphasizing the traditional approach taken and the male-centered language used (along with capital letters).

‍