Jesus the pacifist?

[McCulloch]

Try to debunk it and see where you land. As for physical violence I haven't been attacked by a christian in years. Additionally if a christian attacks you he isn't a christian by definition. Scripture tells us to defend God at every turn but to do it with reverence and respect.

And He said to them, "But now, whoever has a money belt is to take it along, likewise also a bag, and whoever has no sword is to sell his coat and buy one. For I tell you that this which is written must be fulfilled in Me, 'AND HE WAS NUMBERED WITH TRANSGRESSORS'; for that which refers to Me has its fulfillment."
They said, "Lord, look, here are two swords." And He said to them, "It is enough."
[...]
While He was still speaking, behold, a crowd came, and the one called Judas, one of the twelve, was preceding them; and he approached Jesus to kiss Him.
But Jesus said to him, "Judas, are you betraying the Son of Man with a kiss?"
When those who were around Him saw what was going to happen, they said, "Lord, shall we strike with the sword?"
And one of them struck the slave of the high priest and cut off his right ear.
But Jesus answered and said, "Stop! No more of this." And He touched his ear and healed him.

Matthew inserts

Then Jesus said to him, "Put your sword back into its place; for all those who take up the sword shall perish by the sword.

If Jesus taught pacifism, why would he insist that there be a sword?

And when Jesus entered Capernaum, a centurion came to Him, imploring Him, and saying, "Lord, my servant is lying paralyzed at home, fearfully tormented."
Jesus said to him, "I will come and heal him."
But the centurion said, "Lord, I am not worthy for You to come under my roof, but just say the word, and my servant will be healed. For I also am a man under authority, with soldiers under me; and I say to this one, 'Go!' and he goes, and to another, 'Come!' and he comes, and to my slave, 'Do this!' and he does it."
Now when Jesus heard this, He marveled and said to those who were following, "Truly I say to you, I have not found such great faith with anyone in Israel. I say to you that many will come from east and west, and [a]recline at the table with Abraham, Isaac and Jacob in the kingdom of heaven; but the sons of the kingdom will be cast out into the outer darkness; in that place there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth."
And Jesus said to the centurion, "Go; it shall be done for you as you have believed." And the servant was healed that very moment.

If Jesus was a pacifist, why would he not have taken this opportunity to tell this professional soldier to lay up his weapons?

And He found in the temple those who were selling oxen and sheep and doves, and the money changers seated at their tables.
And He made a scourge of cords, and drove them all out of the temple, with the sheep and the oxen; and He poured out the coins of the money changers and overturned their tables; and to those who were selling the doves He said, "Take these things away; stop making My Father's house a place of business."

If Jesus taught pacifism, why would he make a scourge of ropes and drive the money changers out with violence or the threat of violence?

[Goat]

The problem here is that Jesus had a biography. The lives of all people are not monochromatic. Every life has evolution, even in instants.

Jesus was part of the swirl of anti-Roman revolution in Galilee and the Jordan valley. Southern Galilee was ground zero for this stuff. Jesus wasn't born in Bethlehem of Judea, but in Bethlehem of Galilee where the remains of a fortified Jewish revolutionary community from that era have been found. There are no archaeological traces of a Jewish community in Bethlehem of Judea in that period.

Clearly Jesus had Zealot and Essene associations. But his home ground also had a Suffering Servant messianic tradition (Messiah son of Joseph in contrast to the Judean militaristic Messiah son of David). In the Galilean tradition the Josephite messiah was to suffer and die and prepare the way for the Davidic messiah. So, the enterprise was not pacifist in its long range goals.

Jesus and his men went to the Temple armed when they had the Temple Cleansing. You don't go to the Super Bowl and just walk in and throw the hot dog and program sellers out without a fight. There had to have been one heck of a fight. Probably innocents got hurt or killed.

This is what the agony in the Garden of Gethsemane is all about. Fight or Die? Jesus, after the Temple Cleansing, sweated out the math. In the end, Jesus chose the way of peace, and to truly be the suffering servant. Jesus put down the sword and went to the cross.

Both Jews and Christians today call themselves the Sons of David. May they collectively choose to be the Davidic messiah which triumphs over the oppressor not by using the oppressor's means, but the opposite.

The real big problem is that this 'biography' is only from Christian sources, and has contradictory elements.

[Jonah]

Yes,

And that's been the work of biblical historical-critical scholarship. The New Testament is not a perfectly molded crafted product, as much as fundamentalists would have us accept. The patchwork has visible seams. We also need to peal back the 20 centuries of bogus interpretation and examine the patchwork in itself scientifically. We do not stop at the observance of the contradictions, but analyze the contradictions and their historical context. This is why I like the Temple Cleansing story followed by the Gethsemane story with Peter & his sword and Jesus up all night. If one were to simply take folks through a walk through the archaeological remains of the very site of the Temple Cleansing, the person would automatically understand how centuries of popular interpretation and the sugar coating of the original text is propagandistic.

I think we Jews are predisposed to see the actual historical Jesus with more empathy as to his hopes and plight than any fundamentalist Christian would be when faced with the real Jesus.

[Heterodoxus]

Do the commentaries make sense? Why would the disciples who were told to give to all who ask, to walk the second mile, to turn the other cheek to one who would strike it, need to defend themselves from robbers?

Historically, and in light of the known conditions of daily living for the common people in that time and place, yes, albeit not all the commentaries I consulted indicate Jesus did that. Yet, historically speaking, it isn't unreasonable to conclude that Jesus might encourage his closest followers to defend themselves from physical personal attack so that they might be able to go on giving, walking that other mile, and the like.

You've asked me twice why would Jesus do that. I ask the available Gospel scriptures and history: why wouldn't he do that? I hope your open-mindedness isn't becoming prejudiced by the presumed inerrancy of the Bible as we've received it.

Do you recall what religious opinion is supposed to do when history speaks?

Jonah: please complete your Profile?

[McCulloch]

Do the commentaries make sense? Why would the disciples who were told to give to all who ask, to walk the second mile, to turn the other cheek to one who would strike it, need to defend themselves from robbers?

Historically, and in light of the known conditions of daily living for the common people in that time and place, yes, albeit not all the commentaries I consulted indicate Jesus did that. Yet, historically speaking, it isn't unreasonable to conclude that Jesus might encourage his closest followers to defend themselves from physical personal attack so that they might be able to go on giving, walking that other mile, and the like.

You've asked me twice why would Jesus do that. I ask the available Gospel scriptures and history: why wouldn't he do that? I hope your open-mindedness isn't becoming prejudiced by the presumed inerrancy of the Bible as we've received it.

I suppose that I have not made myself clear.

But I say to you who hear, love your enemies, do good to those who hate you, bless those who curse you, pray for those who mistreat you.
Whoever hits you on the cheek, offer him the other also; and whoever takes away your coat, do not withhold your shirt from him either.
Give to everyone who asks of you, and whoever takes away what is yours, do not demand it back.

Jesus spoke in general terms, but let me re-phrase this passage using a specific.

But I say to you who hear, love the bandit, do good to the robber, bless the mugger, pray for the thug.
When the highwayman hits you on the cheek, offer him the other also; and when he takes away your coat, do not withhold your shirt from him either.
Give to the brigand who asks of you, and when he takes away what is yours, do not demand it back.

I ask again, what need is there for a sword for someone following Jesus' teachings?

[Heterodoxus]

I ask again, what need is there for a sword for someone following Jesus' teachings?

The basis for any need to bear and use weapons is, IME, circumstantial.

Recapping, we've looked at this issue via pertinent scriptures, related pro-Christian commentaries, and historically. So, perhaps it's I who haven't made myself clear? If so, then I don't know how to better express the reasoning behind Jesus' words and the comments of others except to say that, whatever the reasoning behind Jesus' possibly metaphorical words, a believer likely won't know what Jesus meant until s/he must make a situational, spur of the moment, on their feet choice between turning the other cheek, turning their feet and escaping, or to turn and fight.

My pre-ministry experiences were such that if I couldn't maneuver out of a dangerous personal situation by word or deed, and when I had to make a fight of it, I opted for self-protection and self-preservation by the use of authorized deadly force every time. That's why I could look church members directly in the eye and say that while it might not be the will of the supreme God that any should die, it might be the intent of your adversary/enemy/opponent, and to respond as their training and conscience dictates.

Think of it this way, too. Had Jesus been the type of Messiah his followers anticipated, he could have easily escaped Calvary and martyrdom. Circumstances dictated that he couldn't do that. Nevertheless, he needed his followers to continue his efforts and likely knew they couldn't do that if they were faced with having to surrender their accumulated treasury or their lives to robbers or murderers.

Am I being speculative? Of course. Nonetheless, it's the circumstances which dictate the situational response of any person, believer in Jesus' teachings or not.

[McCulloch]

I ask again, what need is there for a sword for someone following Jesus' teachings?

The basis for any need to bear and use weapons is, IME, circumstantial.

That would be your opinion and the opinion of just about any rationally thinking person.

whatever the reasoning behind Jesus' possibly metaphorical words, a believer likely won't know what Jesus meant until s/he must make a situational, spur of the moment, on their feet choice between turning the other cheek, turning their feet and escaping, or to turn and fight.

Sorry, I must be missing that last option. Where is it that Jesus expresses that the option to turn and fight? So far, you are looking far more reasonable that Jesus on this matter. It just seems to me that you are trying to make Jesus agree with you, when his words and actions do not.

My pre-ministry experiences were such that if I couldn't maneuver out of a dangerous personal situation by word or deed, and when I had to make a fight of it, I opted for self-protection and self-preservation by the use of authorized deadly force every time.

Good for you. I have never been and hope never to be in such a situation. However, I fail to see the relevance of your personal story here.

That's why I could look church members directly in the eye and say that while it might not be the will of the supreme God that any should die, it might be the intent of your adversary/enemy/opponent, and to respond as their training and conscience dictates.

As opposed to the teachings and example of Jesus and the first century Christians. Good! It looks like you're on our side now. If we can only get more of those Christians to stop looking to Jesus for guidance. ...

Think of it this way, too. Had Jesus been the type of Messiah his followers anticipated, he could have easily escaped Calvary and martyrdom. Circumstances dictated that he couldn't do that. Nevertheless, he needed his followers to continue his efforts and likely knew they couldn't do that if they were faced with having to surrender their accumulated treasury or their lives to robbers or murderers.

Reading between the lines again, are we? I know what Jesus said about accumulated treasury, do you?

Am I being speculative? Of course. Nonetheless, it's the circumstances which dictate the situational response of any person, believer in Jesus' teachings or not.

No, you are being more than speculative. You are teaching a message contrary to the rather plain teaching of Jesus. I'm OK with that. Jesus was not such a smart guy. I really don't understand why anyone would want to be his disciple.

[Heterodoxus]

McCulloch: OK, so much for my attempted existential argument I've done some more digging and what I've discovered might interest you.

In Tatian's Diatessaron (a 4-in-1 Gospels version, c. middle-to-late 2CE), Luke 22:36 is omitted as possibly apocryphal or spurious, or because the events preceding Jesus' arrival in Jerusalem might be better expressed in Matthew 26:14-19, where Jesus' instruction for his disciples to sell their garments and buy a sword is not found.

Next, I reviewed an image of the only extant copy of P75 (c. 200-225CE), the source document for Codex Sinaiticus (�, ca. 300-400CE) and subsequent pro-Catholic documents, ca. 400CE+. P75 is fragmented with multiple lacunae, much faded, and I could read very little of the portion we know as Luke 22:36. And, according to a transcript of P75, the only readable characters within the Luke 22:36 portion of P75 are "...ιπενδ...ι̣ς αλλα̣...χ̣ων̣...λ̣αντ̣...α̣τω ομο̣...η̣�α...ο μη̣...π̣ωλησα̣τ̣...του...ατω μ̣...". This last readable character (μ̣ = Roman letter m) is supposedly the first letter of the Greek word μα�χαι�α ("sword" according to �, and subsequently so rendered in Textus Receptus and KJV).

Then I looked at several other Greek NTs. They all contained a completely worded Luke 22:36. Whether the filling in of the lacunae [...] in the fragmented text, above, was done by a controversial technique called "conjectural emendation" or by comparison to another papyri, I can't say specifically. All I can accurately say is that had I said that verse to the disciples, I'd likely have said something like: sell your clothes and buy a marguerita.

Anyway, if P75 accurately reflects the first-hand, original version of this verse, then what Jesus told his disciples in Matthew 10:9-10 (to take only one coat and nothing else with them) was apparently reversed by what he told them in Luke 22:36. And, again, I can't tell you specifically what might have been the reasoning behind this seeming reversal.

[Heterodoxus]

That's why I could look church members directly in the eye and say that while it might not be the will of the supreme God that any should die, it might be the intent of your adversary/enemy/opponent, and to respond as their training and conscience dictates.

As opposed to the teachings and example of Jesus and the first century Christians. Good! It looks like you're on our side now. If we can only get more of those Christians to stop looking to Jesus for guidance. ...

Im too old and much too independent to take sides, and I'm not trying to get Christians to "stop looking to Jesus for guidance," although I do ardently wish they'd stop looking to him as their מש�יח (Messiah). But, while watching a rerun of Mel Gibson's The Patriot, I heard again a line in the movie that, IMO, sums up well what I was trying to express earlier.

I don't know if you've seen that movie about the American Revolution, but some townsmen were in church where they had just volunteered to join and fight with the local militia. One of those townsmen in the church was, of course, the local Anglican minister. Later, as the new militiamen were riding out of town, the minister, fully armed, was at the rear of the group. When he noticed some of the townsmen who were too old to fight looking questioningly at him, he explained:

A shepherd has to tend to his flock and, at times, fight off the wolves.

I couldn't have said it better than that. Like I pointed out earlier, both when but, especially, why one should bear arms is circumstantial:

[center]"A time to kill,.... ~ Ecclesiastes 3:3a[/center]