It is my belief that Jesus Christ was a revolutionary philosopher. This is best expressed in his teachings on power and violence.

Jesus said, "It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of heaven.” As it is impossible for a camel to go through the eye of a needle I think he is suggesting that rich individuals will find it very difficult to get to heaven. After all, Jesus made it clear that he wanted people to share their wealth with the poor. If they did not decide to do that then they didn’t deserve to go to heaven. Anyone who has spent anytime at all studying the life and words of Jesus knows that he was probably the world’s first socialist.

However, it was the pacifism of Jesus Christ that caused him more problems than his socialism. The most revolutionary thing that Jesus Christ did was to encourage his followers not to serve in the Roman Army. This was the reason why Christians were “thrown to the Lions”. The Romans were very tolerant of other religions as long as religion did not become political. When persecution did not work, the Romans nationalized Christianity. Once under its control, Christianity was used to justify the status quo. The same is true today.

Over the centuries some true Christians have attempted to return to the teachings of Jesus Christ. The best recent example is Martin Luther King. He did it so well that he became as dangerous as Jesus Christ and had to be treated in the same way. However, killing pacifists will not destroy the movements towards a non-violent society. We will eventually get there, with or without the Christian Church.
Here is an article by Bob Murphy you might be interested in reading:

http://www.lewrockwell.com/murphy/murphy60.html

Jesus was clearly a revolutionary thinker who challenged the seemingly natural idea of retribution. Rather than vengeance, Jesus commanded forgiveness (Mt. 18:22). Instead of the pagan ideals of strength and power, Jesus offered the Christian ideals of humility and meekness (Mt. 5:5). Jesus went so far as to demand that His disciples love their enemies (Mt. 5:44).

The above is not in dispute. Even most atheists would agree that Jesus’s teachings were wise precepts concerning the uselessness of hatred and revenge. But did Jesus literally require pacifism?

A straightforward reading would suggest that He did. He literally (given the translation) commanded "whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also" (Mt. 5:39). But perhaps this was just a specific rule? Well, immediately before this famous injunction, Jesus also gave the general rule, forbidding resistance to evil. It is this passage that inspired Christian pacifists such as William Lloyd Garrison and Leo Tolstoy, and I find their interpretation entirely plausible.

Of course, Jesus often spoke in metaphors; one should be very careful in deriving categorical conclusions from a few Gospel passages. When studying not merely His words, but His actions, does it seem that Jesus was a pacifist?

I for one think this is the only sensible conclusion. He rebuked Peter for drawing his sword during His arrest. And of course, the entire purpose of Jesus’s coming to Earth was to suffer unjustly at the hands of evil men, despite the fact that He obviously had the power to prevent this. Such an argument alone doesn’t prove the case for Christian pacifism, but it does show that the doctrine is consistent with Christianity.

Horrible things happen to good people all the time. The use of violence won’t ever "solve" this. Most people would agree that it is impermissible to murder someone, even if so doing would save (through a heart transplant, say) a child from death. Yet most people believe that it is permissible to kill someone in order to prevent him from killing a child. The apparent inconsistency is evaded by classifying the latter case as justifiable defense, and by classifying the dead man as a criminal, worthy of less respect and rights than "civilized" people.

Yet it is precisely this mentality, I claim, that Jesus sought to overthrow. The kingdom of God can only be approached when everyone voluntarily renounces violence against his neighbors. And isn’t it just possible that the best and surest way to reach that goal is for each of us personally to renounce violence, for whatever reason, right now? To say, "I will lay down my arms just as soon as all the evil people do first" is to guarantee that you will never see the kingdom of God during your life.

John, that is a most interesting article that you posted. Very thought-provoking.

I am not sure it answers all of the questions in the real world however.

Let us assume, for instance, that Hitler never attempted to conquer foreign nations, so neither England nor the United States was ever in danger from him.

But let us further assume that Hitler's genocide became known after he had killed close to 1,000,000 Jews and it was clear that unless stopped he would kill millions more.

Let us assume for purposes of this discussion that you are a Christian even if you do not believe in God or the deity of Christ.

What would be the Christian thing to do to respond to Hitler?

Now let's try another situation. You are a husband and a father. Your wife has never had a career but takes care of your four children full-time. A psychotic serial killer is on the loose. You recognize him and he is coming at you with a huge knife. You are cornered and cannot escape but you do happen to have a gun.

Do you let him kill you, and then possibly go on to kill others? If you do there will be an impact, of course, on your wife and family.

My first scenario considers the poissible justification of violence for a moral purpose on a national level while the second brings it to a personal level.

I certainly admire Martin Luther King, Jr.'s methods and would decry violence to achieve social changes. He of course also advocated nonviolence and submission even to physical abuse. Not sure what his position would have been had a racist, for instance, been about to kill his wife or children.

These are difficult issues but merit discussio I think. Is there a way to apply non-violence across the board?

The issue of whether Jesus was a revolutionary on issues of social change, etc I'll try to discuss in a post tonight If other Forum members are interested I am sure it will be a most interesting discussion!

Returning to the issue of non-violence, let us assume you are a bachelor with no family when you are confronted by a demented killer. Under those circumstances would it be appropriate to relinquish your right to defend yourself?

What do you think?

I hope Stephen Turner will join this discussion!

Whilst I do think that the concept of "turning the other cheek" was a revolutionary innovation, I think it's an overexaggeration to see Jesus as rejecting violence under all circumstances. In fact, I think he would have agreed that in certain circumstances refraining from violence would be worse than indulging in it. In Matthew 21, 12-17, we see Jesus using violence to eject the money-changers from the temple. Here, the evil of violence is seen as lesser than the evil of desecrating God's temple... To me, this has always said that there is a point at which failure to resist is morally equivalent to complicity.

I know many devout Christians would disagree with me, and that many of them were willing to give up their lives rather than take up arms. I have deep respect for their views but cannot share them. Like Orwell, I believe that failure to resist evil, even to the extent of using violence, is wrong...

Unfortunately, this does open up a whole barrel to fish relating to the definition of evil and at which point one would be obliged to start resisting, but I do think that the situation in the 1930's to which Orwell was referring was pretty clear...

This depends on your definition of violence. Did Jesus urge his followers to hurt the money-changers? It seems to me that he is just illustrating his hostility to exploiting others in order to obtain riches (a fairly consistent aspect of his teachings). Is their any evidence that he was in favour of violence that resulted in physical harm to others. Did he ever try to justify the “just war”? Is it not true he told his followers to refuse to join the Roman Army?



There was a considerable growth in pacifism following the First World War. This is understandable. It is said that Joseph Ratzinger has taken the name he has because the previous holder of the name (Benedict XV) was associated with trying to bring the First World War to an end.

George Orwell did indeed reject pacifism in the 1930s. I suspect I would have done the same. Orwell made this decision when like thousands of other socialists from around the world agreed to take up arms to defend the democratically elected government in Spain. Maybe if more people had been willing to take that decision we would not have had to fight Nazi Germany in 1939. The whole appeasement policy of the 1930s was a result of the pacifism that emerged after the First World War. Those on the left in Europe (though not in America) rejected this pacifism with the growth of fascism in Italy, Germany, Spain, Portugal, etc. It was argued that it was wrong to use violence if you were living in a democracy. However, when those democratic rights had been removed, you were justified in resorting to violence. The same view is taken when your own country is invaded by another.

I have attempted to answer the point about Hitler above (see the answer I gave to Mike Tribe). I would like to have thought that I would have joined the International Brigade in the fight against fascism. I believe it is morally justifiable to use violence to protect democracy. I also believe it is acceptable to use violence to defend yourself and other people from violence. However, that threat has to be real. For example, I do not believe it is morally justifiable to favour a “pre-emptive strike”. Nor would I be in favour of torturing or executing the person who committed an act of violence against someone else.

I suspect Martin Luther King would not have started a non-violent campaign if he lived in Nazi Germany. But King did not live in Nazi Germany (although there were similarities between the Deep South in the 1950s and Germany in the 1930s). He lived in a country where some regions enjoyed a democratic system. He also lived in a society where the media was free to report on political events. Most importantly, he lived in the age of television. The most important reason why King adopted the tactics that he did was that he was aware of how those images of his followers being beaten by the police for demanding the vote would be interpreted by the rest of the world. Both Eisenhower and Kennedy realised that America’s ability to influence the rest of the world was being undermined by the scenes being showed on television throughout the world.

The interesting question is how would Jesus Christ react to these events if he was alive today. From your reading of the New Testament, do you think Jesus would be in favour of “pre-emptive strikes”? Would he be a supporter of capital punishment? Would he be arguing for the redistribution of wealth between individuals and nations.

As you will know from other threads I am critical of certain policies of the Roman Catholic Church. However, on these issues, I do believe its teachings are consistent with those of Jesus Christ.

I cannot say the same for the Christian Right in America. In fact, its policies seem to be in direct contrast to what he taught. They seem to promote the interests of the rich and powerful. Unfortunately, such is the state of your education system, the poor in America appear to be willing to let them get away with it. I am pleased to say that I suspect that this will not happen in other countries that have democratic political systems (other than those countries where the Americans install their version of democracy).

John S

One of the reasons the Christian Right manages to twist itself into such knots is that it seems incapable of grasping that Jesus spoke and acted symbolically much of the time... I do think we are basically in agreement here, John. With his undeniably violent purging of the Temple --
John 2:14

Jesus was saying that there was a line that could not be crossed before the "just man" had to resort to violence in the cause of justice.

I agree with you that his action here also makes a strong statement exploitation. I believe that Jesus would have agreed with Orwell, would have seen the "line" as having been crossed by the evil of fascism.

I also agree with you that much depends upon whether there are viable alternatives to violence, and to the degree of evil with which the individual is confronted. Orwell and the other anti-fascist volunteers believed both that fascist violence could only be effectively confronted by resort to arms and that the penalty for failing to confront it would be even greater suffering. This sounds like a working definition for a "just war".

I'm a bit torn when it comes to the idea of the "pre-emptive" or "preventive" war. Clearly, there can't be any justification for the invasion of Iraq based on the flimsiest of false stories about weapons of mass destruction. On the other hand, what about a war fought to stop the Holocaust? Or to halt the massacre of the Tutsi in Rwanda? I think that's much more of a grey area...

I am willing to be convinced that it morally acceptable to send in international troops to protect a group from being massacred. However, it is only acceptable if this is a decision made by the international community via the United Nations. I am totally opposed for one or more countries making this decision and then using their superior armed forces to remove a government it dislikes. Although the leaders of this countries may attempt to justify it by saying that it is removing “tyrants” (the same excuse given by the Soviets when it marched into countries in Eastern Europe), it is clear to all non-partisan observers that this action is being taken for economic and political reasons.

Without meaning to sound like a die-hard communist, do you see democracy as an end-in-itself John? Interestingly, in the sermon at my church last Sunday the preacher said that Christians' need to look to God before politics and any political system. He also said that he believed this would make it difficult for a Christian to be an active member of any one political party. Whilst I'm not sure I agree with him, it is an interesting thought...

In addition, and this isn't directed at John, there is a tendency in our society to label and pigeon-hole people for our convenience. It means that people who 'consider' these issues in years to come don't have to think too much - we've supposedly already done it for them!

Doug

No, I do not see Democracy as an end in itself. My main desire is to see an egalitarian world. I believe the best way of obtaining that is via a truly democratic electoral system in all countries of the world. I do not believe Britain is anywhere near achieving this. Some countries are closer than others to this ideal. Britain and the USA are way behind others in Northern Europe to achieving this objective.

Hi Tim.

Jesus's ministry can I belive, be broken down into one single commandment "Love one another." Now lets consider this, to love someone is to, care for their well being, to treat them as an equal, share their belifes, accept them with all their faults, keep them from harm, etc etc. All of this and more we freely give when we love someone. But Jesus asks us to love everyone we meet as a brother or sister, with this he attempts to change the very nature of our day today.

Hi Tim.

Jesus's ministry can I belive, be broken down into one single commandment
" Love one another." Now lets consider this, to love someone is to, care for their
well being, to treat them as an equal, share their belifes, accept them with all
their faults, keep them from harm, etc etc. All of this and more we freely give
when we love someone. But Jesus asks us to love everyone we meet as a
Brother or sister, with this he attempts to change the very nature of our day
to day relationships with each other, and by extention, change the World. This
by anyone's standards is a revolutionary act .It is this Mundane, yet powerful
message that still resonates over 2,000 years later. So potentially Earth
shattering,that they crucified the Man for it, that organised Religion needs to
capture, and "interprite" it. Yet it needs no such interpritation, if Jesus spoke
at all, he addressed the common Man and Woman,not the powerful. So it appears
to me that if you wish to follow Jesus, you must love EVERYONE, regardless of
how they treat you. A hard path to walk....!!!

Christians believe that man is a fallen creature and has a bias which leads towards sinfulness. This is why a political system in and of itself is not a good or a bad thing. I wish I could find the quotation which basically says that people grow thinking communism is a good idea, but end up conservatives. I think that's probably true - people end up looking out for what they've got and what they know. Keeping your mind open to new ideas throughout one's life must be difficult!

Would communism done properly be better than democracy done badly? I don't know.

One thing I do know - that it matters little whether we interpret Jesus as a revolutionary or a conservative. He was probably a bit of both. The thing that does matter is our reaction to Him, but that's for another thread...

Doug

Doug..

The quote is "if an 18 year old is not a communist, there's something wrong with his heart. But if a 30 year old is a communist, there's something wrong with his head..!! I guess there's something wrong with my head.......

I like Kurt Vonnegut's idea from Slaughterhouse Five.

The aliens travel back in time to the time of the Crucifixion in order to try to understand how a message of love ended up justifying so much killing. They worked out what was wrong. The mob had killed this rather ordinary man, and then afterwards they'd found out that he was really the Son of God. 'Crucified the wrong man there, didn't you' was the message. However, this message has a friend: if we killed the wrong man this time, there must be plenty of 'right men' to crucify, so we just have to be more careful who we pick next time.

The aliens suggested that men change the story a little. In the revised version the mob crucified a bum … and then God told them that, from now on, he'd decided to see this bum as his Son. And that you'd better watch out - any time you turn on a bum, I might make him my Son too, so don't crucify the weak and helpless!

---------

I've read a few bits of the Koran in my time (I've lived in several Muslim countries), and a lot of the statements of the prophet Mohammed (PBUH) read this way to me. "You must pay the labourer before the sweat on his brow has dried", for example. Why have a commandment like that if people were already doing it? A lot of the dietary requirements make sense, if you look at the context of the Red Sea region, too - just about everything local that Muslims are not allowed to eat happens to be poisonous, like just about all the amphibians along the coast of the Hejaz (the region the Two Holy Mosques are in).

David, interesting post.

I think a lot of the dietary instructions and restrictions in the Old Testament made sense as well.

I grew up in a Protestant denomination so conservative that grape juice rather than wine was served at communion, and drinking any alcohol was of course strictly forbidden. I respect most of what I was taught and certainly alcoholism can be a scourge (easy to observe that in Key West!), but the denomination was, I believe, wrong about that.

The Bible says that a little wine is good for the stomach. Only recently has science started to understand that there are in fact medicinal qualities in red wine.

Got to run now--tomorrow I'll try to post my answer to "Was Jesus a Revolutionary?" In many ways the answer is "Yes, indeed!".

I recently found this old thread that was addressing a subject of some interest to me. Apparently it originally developed out of a disagreement between John Simkin and Tim Gratz (one of many, no doubt). I think it's unfortunate that it wasn't much pursued, but then there are other important issues that occupy people's time. At any rate, I wanted to post some excerpts from my book which are relevant to the topic of this thread, and hopefully this will give some people something to think about.


From Chapter 6:

...a more adequate identification for most of the Hebrew prophets is that of social leaders whose inspiration came less from an apprehension about the Day of the Lord than from apprehensions about what they saw as an extreme failure of their societies to live up to the highest ideals of their people's heritage. (A comparison with American leaders in the civil rights and anti-war movements of the 1960s and '70s seems fitting.) And if we recognize the prophetic tradition in that sense, we find that John Dominic Crossan's research on the historical Jesus reveals a man who had more continuity with than divergence from such a tradition — without us getting sidetracked over "labels." This may lead us to see Jesus' apparent change in tactics in a different light. Antipas had John [the Baptist] executed. Jesus then initiated an approach which was more openly confrontational and socially offensive, flouting convention directly and inviting others to do likewise, and he did so in the small towns of Galilee rather than out in the wilds.
------------------------------------

From Chapter 13:

...We have other evidence (from Josephus and Philo of Alexandria) that [Pontius] Pilate's rule was provocative to the religious culture of the peoples within his jurisdiction, including a massacre of unarmed Samaritans in 36 C.E. (which resulted in Pilate's being relieved of duty and recalled to Rome).<12> Obviously, Jesus' own fate is significant in this context, despite the Gospels' characterizations of Pilate being not the least mystifying in world literature. Try as he might, Pilate was unable to persuade a bloodthirsty crowd of "the Jews" that Jesus was innocent and did not deserve to hang; and his hands were clean as his own soldiers dirtied theirs with Jesus' blood — Pilate having hardly been in charge of anything at all. If John the Baptist appeared as a preacher in the wilderness a couple of years into Pontius Pilate's administration, this seems less a coincidence than evidence of a manifestly political element in John's activities; and arguments that his ritual was some symbol of widespread discontent seem to be substantial, if not necessarily accurate as a "definition" for it.

******************
12. John Dominic Crossan, Historical Jesus, p. 160; E. P. Sanders, Historical Figure of Jesus, p. 274.
--------------------------------------

From the Conclusion:

But as suggested previously, we also seem to be inherently inclined to label and put into defined categories the things we study as the simplest way to comprehend them. It is more manageable to break down complex social and historical data by reference to various groups with varying agendas; it is not necessarily accurate or even adequate as the fullest representation of the actual circumstances.

Consider another issue relevant to this study. Since John the Baptist and Jesus of Nazareth each had some charismatic authority and both were executed by established political authorities, the conclusion could be drawn that they had been leaders of revolutionary groups who sought to overthrow existing political orders (or were arousing some number of the general populace to bring about similar aims). Thus, the two men may have represented a significant danger to a regime's security. But if no evidence can be found for widespread disturbances occurring during the time in which they were most likely active,<15> the two men may look like less significant figures --- like cult leaders with a small following --- who represented only a small-scale threat to civic peace.<16> But whether the threat was small or great, opinions could range from seeing the imposed penalty as justified to seeing their attempted "revolt" (or reform or protest) as justified, depending on one's political and philosophical persuasions.

But these views partially result from thinking in terms of clearly defined groups and their programs, and assuming that social interactions occur in static, well-defined forms instead of intersecting and overlapping in so many ways it is nearly impossible to pin down any adequate image. Thus, someone could flail about imagining groups and happenings and motivations that never existed but which are entirely comprehensible and convincing within the terms of an interpretation bearing no correspondence to reality. This not only creates confusion and conflicts; much is lost thereby which may have more profound significance. If Jesus and John had been acclaimed more generally, and recognized as legitimate leaders among their people, they would not need to be implicated in some revolt to get into trouble. They would have been opposed --- and disposed of --- as far more serious "national security threats" than your typical revolutionary or common bandit.

****************
15. Philo of Alexandria, a Jewish writer concerned about Palestinian events of the time, does not mention John or Jesus or (apparently) any events associated with them. He does mention an instance of Jewish nonviolent resistance to Pontius Pilate's introduction of military standards with images of Caesar on them (c. 27 C.E.); instances of widespread pogroms against Jews during birthday celebrations for the Roman Emperor Gaius Caligula (38 C.E.); an instance of an Alexandrian mob mocking Agrippa I upon his appointment as Jewish king (by Caligula, 38 C.E.); and an instance of a large, general nonviolent resistance by Jews opposed to Caligula's plan to erect his own statue in the Jewish temple (c. 40 C.E.). See Crossan, Historical Jesus, pp. 129-32, 381, 391. Philo's accounts should be combined and compared with those of Josephus, who related the fates of John and Jesus as well as a further conflict between Pilate and Jews over Pilate's use of temple funds to construct an aqueduct in Jerusalem. Life would not seem to have been entirely carefree for Jews during Pilate's prefecture or Caligula's reign as Roman Emperor (a combined period of only fifteen years).

16. In this view Jesus in particular might seem like some misguided fellow whose delusional self-importance culminated in a pathetic disaster. But such a view may also be characteristic of more traditional interpretations --- viz., Albert Schweitzer's (see Crossan, Historical Jesus, pp. 225, 227).
------------------------------------------------

From the Afterword:

If Jesus is seen as an object of worship, we might not think too much about the circumstances surrounding his humiliating and excruciating demise; we might believe, as in the Gospel of John, that the Passion was a coronation ceremony, the crucifixion an exaltation, the death a triumph. That is a sublimely meaningful image and understanding, but not so helpful when taken to mean that Jesus has since "gone to heaven" and rules over the cosmos with an invisible hand, thus justifying much injustice in everyone else's here and now. Or we might assume that Jesus' death and resurrection were the culmination of God's plan of salvation for the children of Israel, and thereby all the world. This has too often meant that "the Jews" are to "blame" for a death which was not really a death; for a death without which Jesus could not have become master of the universe anyway; for a death depicted not only in a form peculiar to Roman capital punishment --- the crucifixion of the living as a brutal example and profound warning to other potential offenders, but also shown as being accomplished under the auspices of Roman authority, though of course "instigated" by "the Jews." Pontius Pilate makes his good offices available to the service of a rabid nation: he finds Jesus innocent, but convicts him; he does not want Jesus crucified, but gives the order to do so; he washes his hands of the evil, and hands Jesus over to soldiers under his command. The best available evidence you can find for the historical fact that Jesus of Nazareth was executed by the Romans (and thus for an offense of concern to the Romans) is that if the Gospel authors could have found a way to eliminate the Romans from the story entirely, they would have.

------------------------------

A good deal of evidence suggests that a brother of Jesus (James) and a mentor to Jesus (John the Baptist) were each held in high esteem by many Jewish people in the first century C.E., at separate periods before and after Jesus' own career. Yet these same Jewish people are represented as "rejecting" Jesus himself. For a few centuries the Roman Empire has all the power in the world while the Jewish people have none at all after 70 C.E.. Yet those who wrote the Gospels exonerated the Romans from responsibility for Jesus' death (though the Romans were depicted carrying it out), and laid the blame for it upon the Jews. It is entirely understandable from a human point of view that those authors did not fear reprisals from the Jewish quarter, and could hardly be expected to tell the story of their savior's life by showing its climax with him being in opposition to Rome's authority; but this is indefensible as any foundation for a religion. If we come to understand how our Gospels might have been created, we may recognize how history gets rewritten.

We may also be surprised by what we find. We may find that the Gospel authors are often unable to tell their stories without creating effects contrary to their apparent intentions. This is what we find in Luke's presentation of John [the Baptist]'s message from the Q Gospel: the attempt to tone it down creates the impression the author did not know what good news was. This is what we find in the presentation of the Baptist in John's Gospel: John [the Baptist] is successfully minimized, becoming second-best to the most exalted figure imaginable. This is what I find the more I read the account of the trial of Jesus in John's Gospel, following the action while mentally deleting the background rationalizations and invented dialogue. Jesus appears before Pilate and is briefly interrogated. He is then whipped, beaten, and decked out in mock-kingship attire --- a purple cloak and a crown of thorns --- and so presented before a crowd. He is then formally tried at the court of Pilate, "taken in charge," and crucified --- with Pilate himself being understood as writing the "criminal charge" to be fastened to the cross: "Jesus of Nazareth King of the Jews."

I believe that is a Pontius Pilate that Philo and Josephus would have recognized, and I have no doubt whether he and his entourage would not have had great fun at the expense of a man bearing pretensions as a people's favorite....


-----------------------------------------------------------------------
© 2004 by D. W. Dunn. All rights reserved.

In the text where Tim's quote appears (I Timothy 6:10) the quote is not represented as a saying coming from Jesus but from the Apostle Paul. I Timothy is one of the pseudonymous "Pastoral Letters," purportedly written by Paul. But most New Testament scholars agree that these have substantial, identifiable divergences from the writing in Paul's authentic letters (viz., Romans, Galatians, I & II Corinthians) and conclude they were written by authors in a "Pauline school" who wrote in Paul's name in order to teach Church doctrine.

"For the love of money is the root of all evil..." (I Timothy 6:10)

Compare this with what the actual Jesus probably did say:

"Do not store up for yourselves treasure on earth..." (Matthew 6:19)

"No man can serve two masters... You cannot serve God and Mammon." (Matthew 6:24)

Tim's point of view is typical and entirely understandable. Since Jesus lived an itinerant lifestyle of radical poverty and told his followers to do the same, very few persons in their right mind have concluded this was a feasible option for them. It's also a major reason why (I believe) so much emphasis has traditionally been placed on the importance of "Faith" over "Works" in Christianity: what is important is what you think as opposed to what you do in life. (Martin Luther referred to the Letter of James, a "Works"-oriented text, as an "epistle of straw" and wanted to tear it out of the New Testament whenever he read it.) This emphasis goes against most Jewish tradition, particularly as expressed by the Hebrew prophets, which is a point of view that most of Jesus' statements seem much closer to.
I think Jesus made it clear that his followers needed to give up their wealth (share it with the poor), but this was apparently incumbent upon them as a requirement for being a follower (i.e., as part of his "mission" or ministry, they needed to do as he himself did). But there's some evidence that Jesus (as opposed to his later Gospel author-interpreters) said a great deal against the idea of someone other than the Father determining who "deserves" to "go to heaven."

"As he was starting out on a journey, a stranger ran up, and, kneeling before him, asked, 'Good Master, what must I do to win eternal life?' Jesus said to him, 'Why do you call me good? No one is good except God alone. You know the commandments: "Do not murder; do not commit adultery; do not steal; do not give false evidence; do not defraud; honour your father and mother."' 'But, Master,' he replied, 'I have kept all these since I was a boy.' Jesus looked straight at him; his heart warmed to him, and he said, 'One thing you lack: go, sell everything you have, and give to the poor, and you will have riches in heaven; and come, follow me.' At those words his face fell and he went away with a heavy heart; for he was a man of great wealth.

"Jesus looked round at his disciples and said to them, 'How hard it will be for the wealthy to enter the kingdom of God!' They were amazed that he should say this, but Jesus insisted, 'Children, how hard it is to enter the kingdom of God! It is easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God.' They were more astonished than ever, and said to one another, 'Then who can be saved?' Jesus looked at them and said, 'For men it is impossible, but not for God; everything is possible for God.'" (Mark 10:17-27)

This is no doubt an interesting episode, even one which might show Jesus in a harsher light than many would prefer, but it's clear from the context that the main issue was whether or not the pious wealthy young man could take "the next step" (giving up all he owned and going off to live as Jesus and his followers lived). The conclusion suggests that "judgement" per se is up to God, which seems to have been a fairly typical attitude for Jesus.

John makes an important point about the Romans' idea of "tolerance": as long as people paid their taxes and didn't "act up," the Romans could care less about what they believed. This is a major reason why the scholar John Dominic Crossan argues that what Jesus did in the Jewish temple was understood as an act of political sedition by the Romans (and so was the reason for Jesus being crucified). In other words, if Jesus really believed "his Kingdom" was "not of this world," and if he was a pacifist encouraging submission and paying taxes, the Romans would have seen him as largely innocuous; he had to have done something in order to be arrested, condemned and executed. But I can't recall ever reading anywhere that Jesus "encourage[d] his followers not to serve in the Roman Army." Maybe John is thinking of some later Christian who did encourage this.

" But I can't recall ever reading anywhere that Jesus "encourage[d] his followers not to serve in the Roman Army." Maybe John is thinking of some later Christian who did encourage this."

Nor can I, Daniel, But I think Jesus did ‘encourage his followers not to serve in the Roman Army’ in the totality of his teaching - rather than any specific instruction. Certainly the early church, the moment it began to consider the issue, urged soldiers who had become Christians to leave the army. Until the 4th Century this was the normal Christian position. I have chronicled this development as a footnote to the “Just War” debate in the Philosophy/Debates section.

Jesus talked of ‘turning the other cheek’ in the realm of personal conduct, an action more like passive resistance than being passive. In the context of 1st century body language you were forcing someone who had given you a ‘humiliating’ backhand blow to hit you properly, thus acknowledging your existence. (Walter Wink ‘The Powers that be’ page 101 Doubleday 1998)

At the end of his short career, Jesus seemed to invite his disciples to bring a sword or two to the Garden of Gethsemane:

And he said to them, “When I sent you out with no purse or bag or sandals, did you lack anything?” They said, “Nothing.” He said to them, “But now, let him who has a purse take it, and likewise a bag. And let him who has no sword sell his mantle and buy one. For I tell you that this scripture must be fulfilled in me, ‘And he was reckoned with transgressors’; for what is written about me has its fulfilment.” And they said, “Look, Lord, here are two swords.” And he said to them, “It is enough.” Luke Chapter 22 verses 35 – 39

A commentary explains as follows: ‘The story of the upper room ends with a conversation which shows how deep was the gulf of misunderstanding which still separated the disciples from Jesus. He begins by reminding them (in words drawn from the mission charge to the seventy) of the halcyon days of the Galilean mission, when they were able to go out on their missionary tours relying wholly on hospitality for their maintenance. Now times have changed: Jesus is about to be executed as a criminal, and they, as the criminal’s accomplices, will find every man’s hand against them. The instruction to sell their coats and buy swords is an example of Jesus’ fondness for violent metaphor, but the disciples take it literally, as pedants have continued to do ever since. The words ‘It is enough’ indicate, not satisfaction with the disciples’ military preparedness, but a sad dismissal of the subject.’ (Saint Luke by G.B.Caird, Pelican 1963)

Matthew provides us with an account of the tail end of this incident, after one of the disciples has actually used his sword against the arresting party:

“Then Jesus said to him, “Put your sword back into its place; for all who take the sword will perish by the sword. Do you think that I cannot appeal to my Father, and he will at once send me more than twelve legions of angels?” Matthew Chapter 26 verses 52, 53.

He is certainly saying that his kingdom does not depend on military force or coercion. He seems to be saying that violence doesn’t work and isn’t appropriate. However, it was not just then that his disciples weren’t listening.

I agree with this broader perspective, Norman. My recollection was that later Christians did refuse to serve but that Jesus himself had not mentioned it specifically (and would be unlikely to have had occasion to do so, since he was not among many people likely to serve in the Roman Army). As you suggest, Jesus' overall emphasis and program was very radical, both in passive resistance and other types of social "upsetting of tables." An excellent point about "turning the other cheek"; this is similar to anthropological and sociological research arguments made by J.D. Crossan.

Are you familiar with The Death of Jesus by Joel Carmichael? Extremely speculative without any "scholarly apparatus" whatsoever, but interesting and useful for a different perspective. Carmichael takes the view that Jesus' mission had been pacifistic but the episode related by Luke indicates a decision in favor of a revolutionary approach (culminating in a brief, and violent, "takeover" of the Jewish temple). One problem with this is that there should have been a general slaughter of those who took part in such an insurrection, whereas all indications are that Jesus alone paid a penalty for something he did or was doing (Carmichael argues this was all a product of obscuring "what really happened," and the Luke episode was one of the few cases where "the truth" made its way through).

The commentary brings up several issues. There's most often too little information to go on and a counterpoint is almost always available, often within the same Gospel text (in this case from a different Gospel); these texts are tailor-made for speculation as well as getting-into-arguments. I don't see how Jesus' instruction to sell coats and buy swords should be taken merely as "an example of Jesus' fondness for violent metaphor." That he had such a fondness has problems in itself (it at least raises the question why a pacifist should have such a fondness), but I think it's too speculative to say this was Jesus' "sad dismissal of the subject." Most of us have a strong and understandable tendency to project all good onto Jesus, and I think this helps account for the commentator's interpretation. He also takes at face-value the point of view made most strongly in the Gospel of Mark: an overwhelming tendency to cast Jesus' disciples in an almost entirely negative light. Crossan addresses this somewhat in his book The Birth of Christianity, but one of the more interesting books on this issue is Theodore J. Weeden, Jr.'s dated (1971) Mark: Traditions in Conflict. (An argument that Mark's author was writing polemically against "divine men" ecstatics who claimed a special authority based on their self-identification with the Risen Jesus ["false prophets" and "false Christs"] and that he projected most of the negative things he wanted to say against them onto the disciples of Jesus.)

Another problem is that Luke is a late text (c. 90s AD or later) and the episode in Luke 22 appears in no other place (Luke's author was an exceptionally gifted writer, making it very hard to decide what might be original and what might be the author's own imaginative contribution). We seem to be on the firmest ground when we assess what are most likely to be original sayings of Jesus (from the Q source-text used in Luke and Matthew, viz., the Sermon on the Mount); we can draw from these some fairly obvious conclusions about what Jesus' attitudes were most likely to be (like pacifism, non-enmity, putting aside anxious thoughts, etc).

Thank you for a thoughtful post,
Dan


The following is from Burton L. Mack's The Lost Gospel: The Book of Q & Christian Origins. San Francisco: HarperCollins, 1993. Mack presents his own reconstruction and translation of the Q text in Chapter 5, pp. 71ff. "<....>" represent Mack's interpolation of framing text (now missing as the actual text is embedded in the Gospels of Matthew and Luke).


<These are the teachings of Jesus.>

<Seeing the crowds, he said to his disciples,>


"How fortunate are the poor; they have God's kingdom.

How fortunate the hungry; they will be fed.

How fortunate are those who are crying; they will laugh."


"I am telling you, love your enemies, bless those who curse you, pray for those who mistreat you.

If someone slaps you on the cheek, offer your other cheek as well. If anyone grabs your coat, let him have your shirt as well.

Give to anyone who asks, and if someone takes away your belongings, do not ask to have them back.

As you want people to treat you, do the same to them.

If you love those who love you, what credit is that to you? Even tax collectors love those who love them, do they not? And if you embrace only your brothers, what more are you doing than others? Doesn't everybody do that? If you lend to those from whom you expect repayment, what credit is that to you? Even wrongdoers lend to their kind because they expect to be repaid.

Instead, love your enemies, do good, and lend without expecting anything in return. Your reward will be great, and you will be children of God.

For he makes his sun rise on the evil and on the good; he sends rain on the just and on the unjust."
(pp. 73-74)

He said, "The harvest is abundant, but the workers are few; beg therefore the master of the harvest to send out workers into his harvest.

Go. Look, I send you out as lambs among wolves.

Do not carry money, or bag, or sandals, or staff; and do not greet anyone on the road.

Whatever house you enter, say, 'Peace be to this house!' And if a child of peace is there, your greeting will be received [literally, "your peace will rest upon him"]. But if not, let your peace return to you.

And stay in the same house, eating and drinking whatever they provide, for the worker deserves his wages. Do not go from house to house.

And if you enter a town and they receive you, eat what is set before you. Pay attention to the sick and say to them, 'God's kingdom has come near to you.'

But if you enter a town and they do not receive you, as you leave, shake the dust from your feet and say, 'Nevertheless, be sure of this, the realm of God has come to you.'"
(p. 76)

"I am telling you, do not worry about your life, what you will eat, or about your body, what you will wear. Isn't life more than food, and the body more than clothing?

Think of the ravens. They do not plant, harvest, or store grain in barns, and God feeds them. Aren't you worth more than the birds? Which one of you can add a single day to your life by worrying?

And why do you worry about clothing? Think of the way lilies grow. They do not work or spin. But even Solomon in all his splendor was not as magnificent. If God puts beautiful clothes on the grass that is in the field today and tomorrow is thrown into a furnace, won't he put clothes on you, faint hearts?

So don't worry, thinking, 'What will we eat,' or 'What will we drink,' or 'What will we wear?' For everybody in the whole world does that, and your father knows that you need these things.

Instead, make sure of his rule over you, and all these things will be yours as well."


"Sell your possessions and give to charity [alms]. Store up treasure for yourselves in a heavenly account, where moths and rust do not consume, and where thieves cannot break in and steal.

For where your treasure is, there your heart will also be."
(p. 78)

"I am telling you, love your enemies, bless those who curse you, pray for those who mistreat you.

"If someone slaps you on the cheek, offer your other cheek as well. If anyone grabs your coat, let him have your shirt as well.

"Give to anyone who asks, and if someone takes away your belongings, do not ask to have them back."

Has anyone put this point of view to millionaire George Bush and his church?

"Turning the other cheek" is conveniently enjoined upon the exploited and the poor. A rather convenient morality for your slaves to practise so long as it does not apply to their masters.

I agree with your general point, Derek. Jesus’ words have been used by the rich and powerful in such a way as to keep the exploited and poor exploited and poor. The political activities of some religious conservatives in the USA have given ‘authority’ to some of Bush’s worst policies. Not quite so worrying, but closer to home, is the way their money and influence has recently played a part in the UK in raising the profile of Creationism, for example as a ‘respectable’ theory to be introduced into some English schools.

All this does, I admit, help to build a case that the influence of Jesus Christ has been conservative.

However the ‘Q’ passages that Daniel provided are more or less primary sources. As Daniel says: ‘We seem to be on the firmest ground when we assess what are most likely to be original sayings of Jesus’. I personally think that almost on their own they provide proof that Jesus was a Revolutionary. The passages certainly provide a useful focus for discussion - on the Jesus of the 1st Century rather than what people have made of him since. Not that I imagine for one moment that any further discussion would or should be confined to that!

Of course, if it is more widely accepted that Jesus was a Revolutionary, this particular prop of reactionary and repressive policies would be removed, because many religious Americans (rightly or wrongly) believe that religion should be applied to how they cast their vote.

I did read ‘The Death of Jesus’ by Joel Carmichael (40 years ago, I note with some surprise) but was not convinced by his arguments that Jesus was the leader of an armed insurrection. Thank you, Daniel, for re-opening this discussion.

I also agree with Derek's critique. Once Christianity became an official organized religion, Jesus' sayings were more than useful for the State, the Establishment, the Owners of the Means of Production, etc, etc,etc in justifying their power and position. But this is noticeably done by taking all of it out of the context in which Jesus made the statements: i.e., addressing people who lived near (usually below) subsistence levels and talking about how they might live with less anxiety and/or telling them what the kingdom of God should be like (among them). Outside this context, Jesus' sayings have been used as props and/or ignored (depending on the convenience of different circumstances).

What interests me about the excerpted sayings is that whatever we make of Jesus and whatever he was up to, it seems clear there was a programmatic element to his approach, often with very specific details ("Do not go from house to house," "do not greet anyone on the road," etc). This seems to represent a fundamentally political agenda (however much it might be interpreted or obscured to be taken as a case of Jesus sending out "Christian" missionaries to spread the word about Him exclusively and whether He would be "accepted" or "rejected"). Both the content and the context of these sayings indicate that Jesus was very, very far from being "conservative" (or preaching submission, quietism, etc). Do they indicate that he tried to change things at a very basic level of social discourse and behavior, and that his followers were being enjoined to sort of "represent the kingdom of God" in their own persons? This is very radical (so long as we don't project later concerns/interpretations onto them -- viz., like they were mere partisans handing out pamphlets house to house, trying to drum up support for "church-going," voting a certain way, etc)


Norman, I wasn't convinced by Carmichael's arguments either and I also first read it some time ago (25 years?!). I only mentioned it as a counter-example to the view expressed in the Commentary on the same episode in Luke. Carmichael's short book is useful as an alternative perspective to consider, even though extremely speculative and unscholarly; the main thing I drew from it was his emphasis on both the size of the Jewish temple and its central place among 1st century Jews as a combined religious, political, financial, etc locus of activity. When we read about (or, more typically, are told about) the entry into Jerusalem and the "Cleansing of the Temple" episodes, it seems like we tend to envision Jesus going into some one-room church and making a scene. But the temple was the most important institution in the region, the actual building and the surrounding grounds were very large, and so it would naturally have been of particular concern to the Roman administration (and well-covered by "security forces," especially during large festival like Passover). Carmichael's arguments that Jesus was the leader of an armed insurrection are unconvincing, but the larger issues are whether or not Jesus was a populist leader and how the Romans-in-charge would have perceived that. As I suggested in my first post in this thread, if John the Baptist and Jesus of Nazareth were more generally acclaimed as legitimate "social leaders," they didn't need to lead an insurrection in order to get into trouble with the authorities; their status as popularly-regarded and popularly-legitimized leaders would have represented much greater "national security threats" than if they were mere bandits. (And of course Jesus did "make a scene" in the temple, apparently recapitulating a similar protest or denunciation that the prophet Jeremiah had made a few centuries earlier....)

Thank you, Norman, for engaging in this discussion.
Dan

The working hypothesis of many New Testament scholars is the two-source theory, which holds that the Gospels of Matthew and Luke were composed by copying from mainly two sources, the Gospel of Mark and the Q Gospel (or Q source-text). One of the scholars mentioned above, Burton L. Mack, goes a step further and has argued that the Gospel of Mark itself is also based on the Q source (viz., in A Myth of Innocence). Without going into all the details of the problems involved, it should be noted that in the excerpts I posted above from Mack's The Lost Gospel, the middle section may be original to the Gospel of Mark (and copied from there into Matthew and Luke) rather than the Q source. If that's the case, the excerpts from the Q Gospel "proper" would read as follows:

<These are the teachings of Jesus.>

<Seeing the crowds, he said to his disciples,>


"How fortunate are the poor; they have God's kingdom.

How fortunate the hungry; they will be fed.

How fortunate are those who are crying; they will laugh."


"I am telling you, love your enemies, bless those who curse you, pray for those who mistreat you.

If someone slaps you on the cheek, offer your other cheek as well. If anyone grabs your coat, let him have your shirt as well.

Give to anyone who asks, and if someone takes away your belongings, do not ask to have them back.

As you want people to treat you, do the same to them.

If you love those who love you, what credit is that to you? Even tax collectors love those who love them, do they not? And if you embrace only your brothers, what more are you doing than others? Doesn't everybody do that? If you lend to those from whom you expect repayment, what credit is that to you? Even wrongdoers lend to their kind because they expect to be repaid.

Instead, love your enemies, do good, and lend without expecting anything in return. Your reward will be great, and you will be children of God.

For he makes his sun rise on the evil and on the good; he sends rain on the just and on the unjust."
(pp. 73-74)

"I am telling you, do not worry about your life, what you will eat, or about your body, what you will wear. Isn't life more than food, and the body more than clothing?

Think of the ravens. They do not plant, harvest, or store grain in barns, and God feeds them. Aren't you worth more than the birds? Which one of you can add a single day to your life by worrying?

And why do you worry about clothing? Think of the way lilies grow. They do not work or spin. But even Solomon in all his splendor was not as magnificent. If God puts beautiful clothes on the grass that is in the field today and tomorrow is thrown into a furnace, won't he put clothes on you, faint hearts?

So don't worry, thinking, 'What will we eat,' or 'What will we drink,' or 'What will we wear?' For everybody in the whole world does that, and your father knows that you need these things.

Instead, make sure of his rule over you, and all these things will be yours as well."


"Sell your possessions and give to charity [alms]. Store up treasure for yourselves in a heavenly account, where moths and rust do not consume, and where thieves cannot break in and steal.

For where your treasure is, there your heart will also be."
(p. 78) [From Burton L. Mack, The Lost Gospel: The Book of Q & Christian Origins. San Francisco: HarperCollins, 1993.]


There seems to be a substantial difference once the middle excerpts are removed, as it can be argued that Jesus' original pronouncements were more generalized, addressed to a large group of people (rather than "disciples" per se), and less programmatic in intent. If that is the case, the excerpted portions found in Mark (and the parallels in Matthew and Luke) might represent a later exposition of ideas than what the historical Jesus had professed. Or, in other words, these may have been the "mission instructions" to Jesus followers that were developed after Jesus was gone and as a result of his followers developing into a particular movement with an agenda. I personally agree with many scholars that the mission instructions derived from the historical Jesus, but this is a legitimate question to ask (i.e, whether or not Jesus originally was so programmatic as later sources would lead us to believe).

He said, "The harvest is abundant, but the workers are few; beg therefore the master of the harvest to send out workers into his harvest.

Go. Look, I send you out as lambs among wolves.

Do not carry money, or bag, or sandals, or staff; and do not greet anyone on the road.

Whatever house you enter, say, 'Peace be to this house!' And if a child of peace is there, your greeting will be received [literally, "your peace will rest upon him"]. But if not, let your peace return to you.

And stay in the same house, eating and drinking whatever they provide, for the worker deserves his wages. Do not go from house to house.

And if you enter a town and they receive you, eat what is set before you. Pay attention to the sick and say to them, 'God's kingdom has come near to you.'

But if you enter a town and they do not receive you, as you leave, shake the dust from your feet and say, 'Nevertheless, be sure of this, the realm of God has come to you.'"
[Ibid., p. 76]

"The devil can quote scripture to his purpose."

The church has been a consistent agent of conservatism, "rendering unto Caesar" and incidentally lining its own pockets.

And at the same time Christians have been on the other side of the barricades, tending to the poor, comforting the sick, fighting for social justice, and using the words of Jesus to support their position.

John, the Commandment does not say, of course, "Thou Shalt Not Kill". Properly interpreted it says thou shalt not commit murder.

Just a for instance, if you see a child pervert with a knife raised about to kill an innocent five year old, and you ARE armed and can shoot and maim (or even kill) the pervert, I submit the only moral thing to do is to protect the innocent life--not to lay down one's arms.

Best of course if the police maintain order and not individual citizens. But as long as evil exists, we will need force to overcome it and prisons to keep the evil-doers off our streets.

Certainly the war against Hitler was a just war. Hitler was not going to listen to sweet reason; he was about as close to evil incarnate as their could be.

John, man is inherently evil and selfish and the only real solution is when an individual accepts Jesus into his or her life. Jesus' principles can only be followed in their entirety only when one has the power of God in their lives. Which is, of course, not to deny the obvious fact that there are Christian sinners and hypocrites, not to deny that I myself do not routinely commit sin.

Jesus said God's greatest commands were to love God with all your heart and love your neighbor as yourself--indeed love your enemy. That is pretty hard for anyone to do. But what a world it would be if we could all follow those commands!

Who financed Hitler?

Who benefited from Hitler?

Who made Hitler possible?

Hitler did not emerge from nothingness.

World War II was NOT just. And it is not over.

Thou shalt not kill. Thou shalt not murder.

THOU SHALT NOT SEEK A DISTINCTION!

Not only was Jesus a pacifist, but most early Christians were pacifists, until the 4th Century. During this period bishops throughout the Roman Empire urged soldiers who became Christians to give up soldiering (which also shows that they did not always do so.) There is evidence that some Christian soldiers thought it was O.K. to play the role of peacekeepers within the Empire but not to fight wars! Many early Christian martyrs were soldiers who found obeying both God and the authorities impossible, for example St Alban (the first British martyr).

These early Christian attitudes grew out of a version of pacifism which was deeply rooted in the Christian world-view, which included the Christian belief in the ‘Lordship’ of Christ: the earliest Christian creed was simply ‘Jesus is Lord’ –i.e. he demanded total allegiance. For a Roman soldier this conflicted with the sacrifices to the Roman gods he was supposed to take part in. The process of training soldiers to obey orders without question would also have been repugnant to Christians at that time.

In the 4th Century the Emperor Constantine took over the Church (and the Church took over the Roman Empire). The result was that the Church became part of the power structure, whereas previously its membership had been associated with (and very often were) the poor and underprivileged. Because our Western Civilization (and hence our Global Civilization) evolved out of the Constantinian settlement it is difficult to imagine any other way than relying on brute force for our security.

However, there is no doubt that renunciation of violence – a revolutionary idea indeed - was part of the Christian message for the first three centuries after Christ. Ludicrously impractical though it may seem.